—–

Jonah Goldberg put it best: Oh, Dear Lord.

The musical debuted in Germany back in January:

Barack Obama and his dramatic ascent to power has inspired a raft of books and articles. Now a German musical is set to pay an all-singing, all-dancing tribute to the world’s most powerful man. Hope! will soon premiere in Frankfurt.

Wearing a knitted cardigan and crooning into his microphone, Barack Obama paces around the stage, wooing Michelle with a love song. In another number, now clad in a suit, Jimmie Wilson who plays Obama, struts up and down, clasping his mike and leading a euphoric gospel chorus of “Yes We Can.”

No word on whether or not ”Hope!” is still playing or if there have been any updates to the musical with Michelle singing “Life as First Lady is Hell.” Or the somber ballad “We Know We Promised 8%,” the show-stopper “My Negatives Are as High as an Elephant’s Eye,” or the Faustian closing number “Welcome to ObamaCare.”

We’ll keep you updated.

“Being a Texan I had grown up knowing a little bit about it … not a lot and not enough,” Gatlin tells Big Hollywood. He got an earful that day from Steagall, and inspiration quickly struck.

“I told Red back then, ‘that’s a Broadway musical,’” says Gatlin, a solo country star and member of the Gatlin Brothers.

“Quanah,“ a musical based on the Parker story, is having a world premiere stage reading at Pace University  through Jan. 24 at Schaeberle Studio Theater.

Parker was kidnapped at the age of 9 by a band of Comanches. Typically, the kidnappers would do horrible things to young women, like use hot sticks to disfigure them so they were unsuitable as mates. But one of the young Comanches protected her and made sure she was raised by his family as one of their own. The two later became husband and wife.

Gatlin, who wrote the music, story and lyrics for the new production, used creative license to flesh out the story where the historical documents came up empty.

For “”Quanah,” that means reflecting on the westward movement, Manifest Destiny and the evisceration of an entire people, says Gatlin, the rich tenor responsible for hits like “Broken Lady“ and “Delta Dirt.”

“It is about race. It is about religion. It is about politics. It is about land,” he says.

Just don’t expect the show to be anything like a poly-sci course.

Gatlin, who has performed at the Inaugurations of several Republican presidents, says he’s free to “shoot from the hip and tell ‘em exactly what I think” at political rallies. But he applies a different standard in a traditional show or concert.

As entertainers, “We ought to get off our soapbox a little bit,” he says.

Artists should entertain, not lecture, he says. But if you can “stick something in there cleverly and artistically that uplifts your fellow man,” that’s all right, he adds.

“Judy Garland said, ’all I owe them is a great show.’ I don’t think that’s all we owe them,” he says of his audience. “Let the audience decide.”

Gatlin says he’s thrilled that college students at Pace are helping him bring “Quanah” to life.

“It’s been one of the most rewarding fortnights of my life,” he says of his time at Pace so far. The students “are like sponges. They want to know, and they ask good questions. They‘re very talented and very young. They‘ve grown emotionally and spiritually, not religiously, from seeing and being around this story.”

Gatlin, who previously starred on Broadway in “The Will Rogers Follies,” is hoping his show will make it to the Great White Way.

He’s got a few theatrical pals lined up to visit Pace University this week.

“I figure whoever needs to be there will show up. Everybody’s looking for that next big thing,“ he says.

Gatlin is less optimistic that his latest album, an homage to Johnny Cash called “Pilgrimage,” will get the radio airplay it deserves. He says it will take a miracle for the album, which CountryWeekly.com called “a history lesson with a heart” in its three-and a half star review, to gain radio traction.

With the exception of George Strait and Reba McEntire, country radio stations routinely ignore singers over the age of 35.

If Tiger Woods goes out and shoots the lowest score at his next golf tournament, “it doesn’t matter if he’s a scoundrel or a good husband … he’s a winner. Our deal is different,“ he says of the more subjective music industry.

“It’s supposed to be about who writes their ass off and sings their ass off. My brothers and I know how to do that. That’s what it’s supposed to be about.”

“Reagan” is a one-man play that doesn’t portray the 40th president as a fascist. It’s by Lionel Chetwynd, whose scripts for television and film include “The Hanoi Hilton,” “Color of Justice,” “Kissinger and Nixon” and “DC 9/11: Time of Crisis.” ….  Chetwynd declined to comment on “Reagan,” except to say with a laugh, “It will change lives and the course of history.” A copy of an early script portrays Reagan as thoughtful, determined, sly (when necessary) and winning. Talking to the audience from the main room of his California ranch, Reagan explains his journey from FDR Democrat to conservative Republican. Along the way, he offers a spirited defense of conservative principles. At least three top directors have passed on the play because, says a source, “They can’t stand Ronald Reagan.”

The other play cited is “Girls in Trouble (Formerly Three Abortions)” by Jonathan Reynolds.

In “Girls in Trouble,” Reynolds presents a balanced view of pro-lifers while taking some swipes at the NPR crowd. The play ends with a harrowing confrontation between two women — one pro-life, the other pro-choice — that’s not for the squeamish. “Thus far, its claim to fame is that it’s been turned down by all the theaters in New York,” Reynolds says of his play. “It was commissioned by the Long Wharf, but they wouldn’t put it on. There was a theater in the suburbs of Washington, DC, that said they wanted to present the ‘other side’ of the abortion debate. But when they read it, they said it would “infuriate our audience.” Oskar Eustis, the head of the Public Theater, told Reynolds that his staff “didn’t go for it,” but that he would take a look at it himself.

Forgive me for not jumping up and doing a victory dance quite yet… It has always seemed a no-brainer to me that a positive telling of the Ronald Reagan story would be a hugely popular hit.  Not only is his story compelling, inspiring and quintessentially American, but he was and continues to be incredibly popular.  The drama contained within the pages of Peggy Noonan’s “When Character Was King” screams for a stage adaptation.  I hope Chetwynd’s work does Duke justice… the fact that many directors have turned down the piece is a sign that it does.

But, to me the real story in this article is less about the plays that are being shopped as it is a story about the doors that are shut to plays that have this kind of content.  My favorite passage is Oskar Eustis at the fledgling Public Theater.  The staff of the Public “didn’t go for it.”  Hm.  The staff of the Public has succeeded in running the once thriving non-profit to the brink of bankruptcy in recent years.  Maybe we, the theatre-going public don’t go for your staff, Mr. Eustis.  And what a weak-kneed response, too.  Can anyone imagine the original founder of The Public Theater… that titan of New York non-profit theatre Joe Papp, saying that his organization would not produce a play because “his staff didn’t go for it”?  No, Papp would be a man and take the responsibility himself.

I think it would be instructive to take a look at what Eustis’ staff DID “go for” in the 2008 and 2009 seasons.  Perusing their website you will see that these seasons’ plays are chuck full of diversity.  You can’t GET any more diverse than the Public Theater right now.  Black, White, Native American, straight, gay, male, female, Latino, Asian… diversity, thy name is Eustis.  So, what is missing?  How about diversity of THOUGHT AND OPINION?

The diversity that is being celebrated at the Public Theater is the laziest kind of diversity.  Diversity of appearance.  Big deal.  It’s like Eustis is at a dinner party and he makes himself feel good by saying “Some of my best plays are black.”  I thought the over-educated, uber-intellectual, non-profit theatre staffs were a little more interested in being challenged with new ideas.  I thought they are in favor of “speaking truth to power.”  I thought maybe the staffs at non-profit theatres, fresh from Yale Drama School and NYU’s Tisch School of the Arts, were originally drawn to the non-profit theatre world so through their art they could give voice to the voiceless and speak for those who do not have an outlet to speak for themselves.  Instead, Mr. Eustis’ staff give us “Why Torture is Wrong, and the People Who Love Them” and “The Good Negro.”  Yes staff, those plays will truly be intellectually challenging to your well-educated, upper-class, liberal, New York audience.  Truth to power, my brothers and sisters!  Pat yourselves on the backs; you should be so proud.

Is it cool that there are a couple of playwrights getting attention for shopping conservative-themed plays in New York?  Yes.  Is it really cool that the New York Post wrote an article which pretty much ridicules the New York intelligencia for not having enough room in their club for even one play every few years that doesn’t preach to the secular choir?  Yes.  Is it enough that these plays have been written and are talked about even if they never get produced?  Hell no.  Let’s not let this story end here.  Apply the pressure to Mr. Eustis and his staff now.  If there is room in the budget for “Tales of an Urban Indian” then there should be room for a positive play about Reagan or a play which dares to suggest that maybe abortion is wrong.

There is a problem with the American Theatre.

The vast majority of plays produced on our stages are intimidating, antagonistic and often downright offensive to 50% of Americans.  I know this because I am one of them and I see that half of the country votes like I do.

This is not to say these plays aren’t entertaining; many of them are.   The actors are often terrific–one of this country’s rich artistic resources is its acting community.  Ditto for our directors, designers and the crews who execute these artists’ visions.

But, the content of these plays are anathema to many of us.

Other than New York, San Francisco and much of Los Angeles, the majority of theatre goers in America find these plays antithetical to their personal beliefs.  When this is brought up to Artistic Directors in Middle America, when they are confronted and told that they are producing plays that are offensive to their subscribers, they usually respond:  “Good!  That is my mission, to challenge the audience, to not just entertain but to make them think and re-think their deep beliefs and to see another part of society.”

The trouble is, it doesn’t work both ways.  It’s not like the Artistic Directors of theatres in Berkeley or San Francisco or Manhattan are challenging their audiences by making them re-think their beliefs.  The sad fact is that the majority of subscribers at non-profit institutions maintain their subscriptions not because they enjoy the plays, but because they don’t want to lose their season seats.  And the people who run these theatres know it.  In fact, they count on it.  Therefore, they have carte blanche in choosing plays that will antagonize and offend many of their supporters.  It’s the classic co-dependent, dysfunctional relationship, and it is a big problem.

This is an issue I’ve been wanting to cover here at Big Hollywood from the moment I was given the theatre beat.  Today, I finally found my jumping off point.

I stumbled upon a mediocre review of what seems to be a typical, feminist, anti-misogyny, anti-religious right, offensive off-Broadway play.  I was looking for a “big picture” issue to set the show up as an example of the ongoing problem in how plays make their way to the stage in the American Theatre World.  In a feature article in Time Out, I found what I’d been looking for:

In telling the tale of a pair of feminist vigilantes slaughtering Christian right-wingers and gleefully blogging about their spree, Callaghan mashes up Abu Ghraib and Bon Jovi, Harold Pinter and Jane Fonda’s workout videos. Blood, Jell-O and other fluids feature heavily.

So does Fonda herself, who appears as a kind of clueless muse. Putting her onstage as a character began with a challenge from Fagan, for whom Callaghan wrote the play while in the midst of fulfilling a series of more straitlaced assignments for theaters like South Coast Repertory and Playwrights Horizons.

“I was all commissioned up, but I had other material that I wanted to put into a play and no one to write it for,” Callaghan explains…

Did you catch it?  “I was all commissioned up…”  This playwright, Sheila Callaghan, has multiple commissions from mainstream, non-profit theatres to develop her work.  You and I finance those commissions, as I explained in a previous post.  I want to show you a bit of what you’re paying for.

First, let’s examine her current play, That Pretty Pretty; or The Rape Play. Let me be clear, this play is being produced on a shoestring budget in a 99-seat theatre in lower-Manhattan by a small non-profit called Rattlestick Playwrights Theatre.  It is NOT one of the commissioned plays at a larger, non-profit theatre.  However, the existence of those commissions allows this playwright to write plays like this.  She makes a point to say that mainstream theatres probably would not touch this play, but, because Rattlestick is a non-profit, 501(c)(3), you and I subsidize their existence by allowing them to forgo any kind of tax burden.  This is how the Rattlestick Playwrights Theatre web page describes the play:

A pair of radical feminist ex-strippers scour the country on a murderous rampage against right-wing pro-lifers, blogging about their exploits in gruesome detail. Meanwhile, a scruffy screenwriter named Owen tries to bang out his magnum opus in a hotel room as his best friend Rodney (“The Rod”) holds forth on rape and other manly enterprises. When Owen decides to incorporate the strippers into his screenplay, the boundaries of reality begin to blur, and only a visit from Jane Fonda can help keep worlds from blowing apart. Sheila Callaghan’s THAT PRETTY PRETTY; OR, THE RAPE PLAY is a violently funny and disturbing excavation of the dirty corners of our imaginations.

By the way, they omitted the fact that the character of Rodney (“The Rod”) is an Iraq War veteran.  That’s the guy who “Holds forth on rape and other manly enterprises.”

The mission statement for Rattlestick Playwrights Theatre is also on their web page:

In order to best foster the future voices of American Theater, Rattlestick Playwrights Theater is committed to the development and production of innovative new plays.

Our mission is to provide a positive, nurturing experience for emerging playwrights, to present diverse and challenging plays that otherwise might not be produced, and to foster the future voices of the American theater.

Rattlestick is supported, in part, by New York City Department of Cultural Affairs and the New York State Council on the Arts.  Ever want to complain about the sales tax or hotel tax when you visit New York?  The good folks at Rattlestick thank you for your support.

Two productions ago they featured the 10-year-old play Corpus Christi by Terrance McNally (McNally is hardly an “emerging playwright” in need of a “positive, nurturing experience”).  Corpus Christi is infamous for its subject matter; it depicts the final days of Christ with the twelve apostles.  Oh, and by the way… Jesus and the apostles are all gay!!!  The Last Supper scene cannot be described here.

The production before Corpus Christi was Lady by Craig Wright, creator of ABC’s Dirty, Sexy Money (he too needs a “positive, nurturing experience”?).  Here is an excerpt of one reviewer’s take on Lady:

Craig Wright has done a masterful job in cleverly camouflaging his anti war, anti Bush sentiments within the confines of a hunting trip gone sour. As Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s son prepares to deploy to Iraq this play resonates in a most timely manner.

What makes me think that if Andrew Breitbart, Gary Graham and I were watching this play, Mr. Wright’s politics wouldn’t seem too “cleverly camouflaged?”  I think you get the picture…

So, let’s reset the stats here:

• Sheila Callaghan was “all commissioned up” but wanted to write another play about two mass-murdering feminists who target right-to-lifers.  One of the only male characters is an Iraq-war veteran who “holds forth on rape and other manly enterprises.”
• The play is being produced by a non-profit theatre (that means they do not pay any taxes on income, meaning you and I are subsidizing their efforts) which claims they are producing “diverse and challenging” plays that “otherwise might not be produced.”
• In the last calendar year, they presented a play that most Christians would find offensive and blasphemous written by one of America’s most-produced playwrights, and a play written by a creator of a prime-time network show in which he “has done a masterful job in cleverly camouflaging his anti war, anti Bush sentiments.”

OK?  Everybody with me so far?

Time for my “Big Picture” thesis: Broadway continues to present left-wing, anti-traditional American values, anti-religious, feminist, pro-radical gay agenda plays because that is where the non-profit money is.  Yes, Broadway is a commercial enterprise and plays there live or die by the ticket-buyers, but the REAL money for playwrights prior to their big Broadway break is found in all of the commissions and grants doled out by Artistic Directors and Dramaturgs (a position within a theatre that deals mainly with research and development) in non-profit and college theatre institutions all over America.  And these Artistic Directors and Dramaturgs are all protected financially by you and me.  By living in the protected environment of non-profit status, they are operating in corporations that are not burdened by America’s draconian corporate tax laws and they are not worried about having to actually sell tickets to an agreeable audience for their survival.  They get their paychecks guaranteed by the efforts of their Development Department, not by producing quality entertainment.

So, how do these plays get chosen?  The Dramaturgs or Literary Managers at a non-profit theatre have many research and development roles within the organizations, but a major component of their role is to be the main gateway for the Artistic Director by evaluating script submissions.  Dramaturgs are prime magnets for a whole host of interns who eagerly work for prestigious non-profits as a stop on the road to their dream job as a director or playwright or…dramaturg!

A typical dramaturg has a disheveled office with piles of submitted scripts on the floor around her desk.  She has at a master’s degree (if not a doctorate) and her thesis (or dissertation) was probably an analysis of Shakespeare’s patriarchal paradigm or O’Neill’s racist subtext or a revisionist take on Medea as a modern-day Sarah Palin. She only listens to the early Indigo Girls (before they went corporate and sold out) and she never misses the opening of a Michael Moore film.  She has a TV but no cable or satellite; it is tuned only to the local PBS station and is otherwise used to watch DVDs of obscure documentaries, foreign films, and Robert Altman movies.  If she’s in New York, she takes the bus, not the subway, and if in LA, she drives a Prius or takes the subway.  She lacks a sense of irony.

Her staff is a group of graduate students who require certain days off to attend the local anti-globalization rallies yet insist on using iPods, iPhones and Macbooks all built by slave labor in Chinese Contract Manufacturing plants.  Irony is lost on them, too.  They have fine leadership qualities, so much so that they are now the RA for their dorm and are in charge of conducting sensitivity training and sexual-harassment seminars reminding all of the co-eds that “one in four women in college will be sexually assaulted,” and they believe it.  They also believe that the non-profit they work for is too corporate and misogynistic and needs to be more diverse, inclusive and “push the boundaries” of the western theatre paradigm.

These are your gatekeepers.  These are the people who will read through three or four scripts a day and boil them down to one page summaries for evaluation and judgment.  Which types of plays do you think they will recommend?  What have they been trained in college to judge as art?  What subjects do they find entertaining? If they are looking to embrace a play with a serious message, what message do you think is worth endorsing?

******

Sheila Callaghan’s play is absurd.  I think she would agree.  It is meant to be absurd and to ridiculously reflect the over-the-top violence depicted in Tarantino movies.  It is also meant to point out the absurdity of rampant pornography and the insidious waltzing partners of voyeurism and exhibitionism found on the Internet that young men and women are embracing with alarming aplomb.  The sad irony and infuriating reality is that my fellow center/right thinkers in the entertainment industry agree with the hazards of the disintegration of the culture and the demeaning depiction of women in the media. The real targets of Ms. Callaghan’s 90-minute diatribe should be the liberal music executives promoting gangster rap acts or the leftist network executives at MTV who finance disgusting reality shows that do more to objectify women than any issue of Playboy ever could.  But the only indictment of the music business is the use of White Snake album art in the poster design for the play.  Let’s please note that the standard audience for White Snake is young, white, Mid-Western males.  But which is more relevant to the culture of 2009 America, White Snake circa 1983, or Chris Brown and Akon? The rap industry is not targeted because of obvious political correctness considerations.

But even more frustrating is that statement in the Time Out feature:  “I was all commissioned up, but I had other material that I wanted to put into a play and no one to write it for.”  All commissioned up. According to her bio, Ms. Callaghan received awards or commissions from South Coast Repertory Theatre in Orange County, California.  Playwright’s Horizons and Cherry Lane Theatre in Manhattan.  New York State Council for the Arts, New York Foundation for the Arts, The MAP Foundation, The Susan Smith Blackburn Award, The Whiting Writing Award, The Jerome Fellowship… all organizations, foundations and civic entities giving grants to playwrights to support them while they create their works.  If you go to the web pages for these organizations and look at their mission statements, you will see pretty much the same thing:  “…makes grants that support emerging artists in the creation, development and production of new works…” blah blah blah.  Nothing in there about politics.  Nothing about pushing a specific agenda.  Nothing about challenging the audience with an extreme viewpoint or philosophy.

But the recipients of these grants all tend to do that.  Coincidence?  I doubt it.  I bet if we take a look at the people evaluating the plays and playwrights who receive these grants, they’ll look a lot like our friendly neighborhood dramaturg and her staff.  And so it goes… on and on… the circle continues… all the while talented playwrights who celebrate traditional American ideals with stories of hope lose out to those who proclaim the false courage of “pushing the envelope” of societal norms.  And I do not begrudge Ms. Callaghan her livelihood or her well-earned honors.  I think she is a talented playwright.  My beef is with the ideological vacuum in which she is allowed to create her work.  Wouldn’t the American theatre be much more vibrant if ideas and voices were allowed to flourish from all sides of our political and cultural zeitgeist?

This is the problem, or more accurately, the root of the problem with American Theatre today.  And the solutions are not easy or cheap but they could actually take effect with relative haste and with very real results.  The solutions?  You’ll have to wait for Part 2 of this manifesto.

Stage Right is on Facebook

Because it’s Oscar Sunday and the whole world is focused on the Kodak Theatre and the red carpet parade about to happen, it seems fitting that Broadway throws Hollywood a bone today.  Also, considering every other Broadway show these days seems to be a staged version of a popular movie, (“Shrek”, “Wedding Singer”… Really?) it seems appropriate to shine a little light on a Broadway Musical that has been adapted to film. 

My opinion is that in most cases, Broadway musicals are rarely improved by their film adaptations.  Even the good film versions of musicals are still not as theatrically thrilling or as emotionally impactful as the experience of seeing these shows live.  “Chicago”, “Hairspray” and “Phantom of the Opera” are all very recent examples of fine film adaptations.  But I contend that even in the case of ”Chicago”, an Oscar winner, the theatre version was superior.

However, there are a few exceptions and in one extraordinary case, the film version is so superior than the stage version, that it is almost painful to sit through the original theatrical piece.  That exception is “The Sound of Music”.

The film version of “The Sound of Music” is superior to the original play in every way.  In fact, lately many local amateur productions of the stage version of “The Sound of Music” have even adopted some of the changes made for the film and implemented them on stage.

Since I come from the theatre perspective, it’s difficult for me to fully analyze what makes a film great, but I will point out the major differences between the original stage version and the brilliant movie.

Locations, locations, locations.

The biggest difference, and in many ways the most significant, is that through the film version we are actually transported to the beautiful locations discussed in the show.  We actually SEE Maria singing at the top of her lungs on a beautiful mountain on the Vienna/Swiss border.  We follow the children through the streets of Vienna as they learn to sing.  We are caught in a high-speed chase as the family flees the Nazis in the dark of night.  Austria is one of the characters in “The Sound of Music” and when you have to sit and watch a stage version you really miss those beautiful scenes in the film.

Nothing, nothing, NOTHING beats this incredible opening sequence and it can ONLY be done on film:

Now THAT’S a nun I could fall in love with.

OK, I know its a bit of theatrical heresy to state my next point, but thankfully, I am still anonymous and the theatre police will not come after me and lock me up for whispering a truth that we all know but are not supposed to reveal:  Mary Martin was never really that great.  I know, I know, she’s a legend and she has more Tonys than a good Little Italy restaurant and she was box office gold… but, come on!  Do you really believe that Captain Von Trapp would mess up a good thing with a baroness to take a chance on Sister Mary Martin?  And, wasn’t she a little too old to be a young novice?  I think she could have been a Mother Superior back in 1959.

Meanwhile, Julie Andrews was nothing short of perfection.  Her’s is a timeless performance and she is utterly believable not only as a young, innocent nun, but also as a beautiful romantic love interest and as a mother figure to the children.

Also, Christopher Plummer is brilliant in the very thankless role of Captain Von Trapp.  Again, believable as a stern but loving father, but he also makes a perfect transition to romantic love interest.  A huge improvement over the original Broadway casting of folk singer Theodore Bikel.

A few of my favorite things.

When the film version of “The Sound of Music” was written, the creators made a few structural changes to the show and re-arranged a few songs.  The minor adjustments they made are so incredibly logical and improve the flow of the story and the pace of the first act that it almost seems a crime that the original stage version is not officially re-written to reflect the film version’s structure.  The major differences are:

• On Broadway, during the rain storm when the children all come to Maria’s room to hide from the thunder and lightening, the song Maria sings to make them feel better is “Lonely Goatherd”!  Can you even imagine that song in that context now?  “My Favorite Things” is the PERFECT song for that scene and how they didn’t put it there in the first place is a mystery.

• Wait, it gets stranger… in the original Broadway version, “My Favorite Things” is actually a duet between Maria and Mother Superior sung at the convent prior to Maria going to join the Von Trapp family as a governess.  Mother Superior sings it to Maria to give her confidence to leave the convent.
• In the Broadway version, the characters of Max and Elsa (the baroness) are given a couple of ill-advised songs, “How Can Love Survive” and “There’s No Way to Stop It” that are wisely and thankfully excised from the film.  Max and Elsa don’t need to sing, and keeping these songs from them does not diminish their characters, in fact it gives them more weight and importance by keeping them “straight”.
• The love song between the Captain and Maria on Broadway is a real clunker called “An Ordinary Couple” which sounds more like an older couple planning their retirement years rather than two star-crossed lovers throwing convention aside and following their overwhelming emotional desire for each other:

An ordinary couple
Is all we’ll ever be,
For all I want of living
Is to keep you close to me;
To laugh and weep together
While time goes on its flight,
To kiss you every morning
And to kiss you every night.

We’ll meet our daily problems,
And rest when day is done,
Our arms around each other
In the fading sun.

An ordinary couple,
Across the years we’ll ride,
Our arms around each other,
And our children by our side…
Our arms around each other.

Zzzzzzzzzzzz….oh, I’m sorry, is the song done yet?  Compare those lyrics to the ones written for the film version:

Perhaps I had a wicked childhood
Perhaps I had a miserable youth
But somewhere in my wicked, miserable past
There must have been a moment of truth
For here you are
Standing there
Loving me
Whether or not you should
So somewhere in my youth or childhood
I must have done something good
Nothing comes from nothing
Nothing ever could
So somewhere in my youth or childhood
I must have done something good

Doesn’t that better reflect the seriousness of the romance?  And the way it is filmed is romantic and kinda hot!

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

So this may be the only time you hear me say it, but if a stage version of “The Sound of Music” is playing near you…. ehhh…. skip it.  Get the DVD of the amazing film, and make your kids watch it.  The movie’s got EVERYTHING:

• GREAT songs
• GREAT cast
• Cute kids
• Beautiful scenery
• Funny nuns
• Beautiful romance
• And the bad guys are NAZIS!  What more do you want??!!??

What better song for this week’s finale than:  “So Long, Farewell”?  ENJOY THE OSCARS!

One more encore….

OOPS!  I almost forgot the trivia!  I ALWAYS like to share a little trivia or an inside theatrical anecdote about the shows we discuss on Sunday Matinee.  So… This week, I’ll merge the two themes:  “The Sound of Music” and award shows!

1960 is still one of the most debated and talked about Tony Award seasons ever.  It was chock full of competition and incredibly surprising winners.

In the Best Musical category “The Sound of Music” was up against another classic:  “Gypsy”, as well as “Fiorello!”, “Once Upon a Mattress” starring Carol Burnett in here legendary Broadway debut AND “Take Me Along” starring none other than Jackie Gleason in his triumphant return to Broadway. Also starring in “Take Me Along” and nominated for Best Actor in a Musical:  Robert Morse and Walter Pidgeon… also nominated for Best Actor in a Musical:  Andy Griffith in “Destry Rides Again”!

There’s more… while you were in town and you wanted to see a play instead of a musical, you could have seen:   Sidney Poitier in “A Raisin in the Sun” or Jason Robards, Irene Worth and Maureen Stapleton in “Toys in the Attic” or George C. Scott in “The Andersonville Trial” or how about Melvyn Douglas in “The Best Man”?  Or, Geraldine Page and Rip Torn in “Sweet Bird of Youth”!  Or, perhaps you couldn’t get tickets to those plays… you could settle for Anne Bancroft in “The Miracle Worker”!  Meanwhile, Jane Fonda in “There Was a Little Girl”, Roddy McDowell in “The Fighting Cock” and Warren Beatty in “A Loss of Roses” round out the “youth movement” in the 1960 season.

Imagine that season:  Jackie Gleason, Carol Burnett, Mary Martin, Ethel Merman, Andy Griffith, Robert Morse, Walter Pidgeon, Sidney Poitier, Jason Robards, Irene Worth, Maureen Stapleton, George C. Scott, Melvyn Douglas, Geraldine Page, Rip Torn, Anne Bancroft, Jane Fonda, Roddy McDowell and Warren Beatty… top ticket price:  $5.00

So, since this is awards day, let’s reveal the winners from 1960:

Best Musical:  A very rare TIE!  And NOT the two shows you expect:  “The Sound of Music” and….. that timeless classic, the often revived and unforgettable….. ”Fiorello!”  That’s right:  “Fiorello!”… NOT “Gypsy!”  NOT Jule Styne and Stephen Sondheim and Arthur Laurents and Jerome Robbins creating a masterpiece of American Musical Theatre… no, instead we honored “Fiorello!”.  What were they thinking (drinking)?  (Makes that whole “Shakespeare in Love” over “Saving Private Ryan” & “Life is Beautiful” almost acceptable, doesn’t it?)

Best Play:  “The Miracle Worker” beating out “Toys in the Attic”, “The Best Man”, “A Raisin in the Sun” and Paddy Chayefsky’s “The Tenth Man”!

Best Actor in a Play:  Melvyn Douglas over Poitier, Robards and Scott.

Best Actress in a Play:  Anne Bancroft

Best Actress in a Musical:  NOT Ethel Merman giving a performance anyone would give there right appendage to have witnessed.  NOT Carol Burnett in a performance anyone would have given their OTHER appendage to have seen… no, the winner that year was….   Mary Martin…. seriously… Mary Martin.  {sigh}

Best Actor in a Musical:  The man who never won an Emmy Award for his groundbreaking work on television… Jackie Gleason.  How sweet it is!

Stage Right is on Facebook

As I did last week, I like to start Sunday Matinee with a little-known fact: Many people know that Fiddler is based on a play written by Arnold Perl called, Tevye and his Daughters, based on Shalom Aleichem’s story, Tevye the Milkman. But, the title “Fiddler on the Roof” as well as the iconic imagery of the Fiddler used in the production does not come from that original source material. It comes from a series of paintings by Marc Chagall, the foremost Jewish/Russian painter of the 20th Century. Several of his paintings utilized the fiddler image to represent the precarious life of the Jews living in Eastern Europe at the time. The creative team of Fiddler recognized the powerful and poetic imagery and used it not only in the text of the show, but also set designer Boris Aronson used Chagall inspiration for the original Broadway production’s scenic elements as well.

I’m not going to bother with a *Spoiler Alert* on this post because if you haven’t seen Fiddler yet, I genuinely feel sorry for you and reading and learning the plot will actually do you some good!  The full Fiddler plot is here. 

Tradition:

When you first think of Fiddler, 9 times out of 10 you probably think of the lead character Tevye, with his hands raised singing If I Were a Rich Man. It is one of the many iconic images and phrases from Fiddler. But despite that, Tevye’s anthem of yearning for money and a comfortable life free from work should not be mistaken as the song representing the theme of Fiddler. It’s not even the main motivation for the Tevye character. The show’s theme and Tevye’s focus are revealed within the first five minutes of the show: (Editorial note: For any video examples in this post, I am purposely linking to high school productions so you can enjoy the purity and transcendent genius of the show. If teenagers can make it work, it’s a strong piece! Also, the energy and exuberance from a youthful cast and a youthful audience always makes the hair on my arm stand up straight.)

“A fiddler on the roof. Sounds crazy, no? But in our little village of Anatevka, you might say every one of us is a fiddler on the roof, trying to scratch out a pleasant, simple tune without breaking his neck. It isn’t easy. You may ask, why do we stay here if it’s so dangerous? We stay because Anatevka is our home. And how do we keep our balance? That I can tell you in a word-TRADITION!”

Traditional values. Traditional families. Traditional gender roles. Traditional societal norms. Traditional religious rules and dogma. And, unquestioned adherence to those traditions: “You may ask, ‘where do these traditions come from?’ Well, I’ll tell you… {pause}… I don’t know. BUT IT’S A TRADITION!” This was the paradigm presented by Fiddler in its opening number. And the greatness of this opening number goes beyond the introduction of the themes and structures in the show, it also instantly introduces the audience to major characters, their personalities, the importance of the matchmaker, the penchant for loud and boisterous social conflicts which will be further revealed in the show, and the under-lying conflict with the gentiles. When one musical number can introduce all of this and set the stage for the plot and the social themes to be addressed, and yet still be entertaining and hummable, then you’ve got true greatness. When we discuss a great opening number, it’s time to address the master of the great opening number: Jerome Robbins.

Legendary director and choreographer Jerome Robbins has always preached the importance of an opening number. Robbins would frequently ask, “What is this show about?” until he got a satisfactory answer from the writers. When they reached the conclusion that ultimately Fiddler is about a complete breaking down of a former way of life and the ushering in of a new day full of new ideas, Robbins immediately helped construct Tradition. Robbins famously came to “fix” Stephen Sondheim’s first solo musical, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, which was having big trouble in out of town tryouts. At the time the opening number was a cute song called Love is in the Air, which set the stage for the love story of the show, but the main drive of the production was Zero Mostel and Jack Gifford’s hilarious performances. Robbins advised Sondheim to re-write the opening number to better reflect the bawdy, raucous humor contained in Larry Gelbart’s book. Almost overnight, Sondheim came up with, Comedy Tonight and the rest is Broadway history. 

Robbins contribution to the creative process in Fiddler was just as instrumental. This was his first Broadway production with no real dance piece like in West Side Story or Small House of Uncle Thomas in King and I, Robbins last two mega-hits prior to Fiddler. Instead, this show was a triumph of storytelling through the art of staging rather then dance and he became the first director/choreographer to be so intertwined with the writing and creative development of a play. Until then, the formula for success on Broadway was to have a strong writing team deliver a show to George Abbot, and then let Mr. Abbot direct it. After Fiddler, the great directors and choreographers would join the writers in the collaborative effort like never before.

I’ve got FIVE daughters!

After tradition, we follow Tevye’s family through a critical time in their lives. The three oldest daughters are of marrying age and they eagerly await a visit from Yente, the matchmaker, a legendary role created by none other than Bea Arthur in the original Broadway production. The three daughters, Tzeitel, Hodel and Chava sing one of the most charming and elegant forms of the “I want” style of song for the musical theatre. An “I want” song, obviously, is a song where the character reveals to the audience their inner-most desires and allows the audience to root for and be a part of that character’s journey in getting what they desire. Alan Menken is the master of the “I want” song with “Somewhere That’s Green” from Little Shop, or Part of That World from The Little Mermaid. In Matchmaker, we learn about each daughter’s personalities and their desires, their interplay with each other, and the important concern they have about being stuck with a bad match. It is clear in this song, that they have no say in their future husband, a key plot point in Fiddler.

Tzeitel:
And you have your eye on the Rabbi’s son.

Hodel:
Well, why not?
We have only one Rabbi and he has only one son.
Why shouldn’t I want the best?

Tzeitel:
Because you’re a girl from a poor family.
So whatever Yenta brings, you’ll take, right?
Of course right!

Again, the elegant melding of lyrics and book to perfectly convey the characters needs as well as the major conflict keeping them from their dreams. And all of this put to an impossibly perfect melody that you feel like you will hum for the rest of the week. That’s what makes great musical theatre.

So through Tevye’s three eldest daughters we are introduced to the main conflict in the story: He wants to marry them off to the best possible husbands (based on his traditional criteria) and they wish to marry whom they, themselves choose (a revolutionary idea for Anatevka). And with this storyline comes the main cultural impact and societal message that Fiddler conveys. In 1964, the traditions and societal norms that were so grounded and reliable in the Western World were just starting to be upended (for better and for worse) and through Tevye, the Broadway audience could reflect their own struggles in accepting the radical changes going on around them.

The idea of Tevye resisting his 1st daughter’s desire to love the poor tailor that she has chosen for herself rather than the very old, but wealthy butcher that the Matchmaker has chosen for her seems quaint by today’s standards as well as 1964’s, but as the story progresses, Tevye is asked to continue to waiver and bend on his traditions and beliefs to the point where he cannot bend anymore. At a time when sons and daughters would soon be coming home from college with interchangeable hairstyles and wardrobes, Tevye’s problems resonated with the public, and still do. This was the generation that was about to be targeted with the offensive slogan: “Don’t trust anybody over thirty.” Watching Tevye cope with his troubles was no doubt good preparation for these poor folks and the trouble they were beginning to experience.

L’chiam, TO LIFE!

Another over-riding message in Fiddler is happiness and triumph through adversity. There is no doubt that the people of Anatevka had hard lives. They were poor. They lived in the Ukraine which was not really known for its lovely climate and living conditions. They were religiously and politically oppressed by the Tsarist police state. And yet, these people knew how to party! In the joyous tavern scene when Lazar Wolf, the butcher, is celebrating his engagement to Tevye’s daughter, we watch as the men of Anatevka explode with exuberance and a love of life that teaches the audience that life is for living and enjoying and we are to find happiness no matter what our circumstance. The same in the wonderful wedding scene which starts with the timeless Sunrise, Sunset which, again, conveys characters inner-most thoughts and melancholy at seeing their eldest child get married. The lyrics of Sunrise, Sunset are so wise and clean that it has also gained the status of timeless classic:

Is this the little girl I carried?
Is this the little boy at play?
I don’t remember growing older
When did they?

When did she get to be a beauty?
When did he grow to be so tall?
Wasn’t it yesterday
When they were small?

Sunrise, sunset
Sunrise, sunset
Swiftly flow the days
Seedlings turn overnight to sunflowers
Blossoming even as we gaze

Sunrise, sunset
Sunrise, sunset
Swiftly fly the years
One season following another
Laden with happiness and tears

But after that lyrical and dream-like song, the cast yells “Mazel Tov,” and the wedding celebration begins. A cacophony of dance highlighted by the iconic bottle dance performed by formally dressed, orthodox Jewish characters. This is not your standard vision for a show-stopping Broadway dance number, but when done with control, energy and passion it elicits screams of delight from the audience.

L’chiam and The Wedding Dance, as well as Tevye’s overall approach to life with humor and whimsy provide a joyous lesson for the Fiddler audience: “Sure, life stinks, but what choice have you got but to smile and enjoy whatever little pleasures we get.” A smart guy I listen to would use that lesson as a formula for life-long happiness.

Bend, but don’t break.

It is Tevye’s third daughter, Chava, who provides him the greatest challenge. Like Tzeitel and Hodel before her, she presents her father with an ultimatum: Give my marriage your blessing or lose me as your daughter. But this time, Chava is marrying outside the faith. And although we see her fiancee associated with the Cossacks earlier in the play, he has renounced the Tsar and the pogroms in Anatevka because of his love for Chava. The only objectionable thing about him is that he is not Jewish and we discover that this is too much for Tevye to accept. And although inter-faith and inter-racial marriages are so common today, we are sympathetic to Tevye’s decision as it is a metaphor for the line that each of us has within ourselves. We recognize in Tevye that moment when each of us is prepared to say “Enough,” and even at the risk of losing the love of a family member, we must adhere to our principals. In this case, Tevye puts his love of God and how he was taught to observe that love higher than even his daughter and it comes across not as stubborn or bull-headed, it is seen as admirable.

And in the discomfort of this scene, after Tevye pronounces that “Chava is DEAD to us!” when learning of her eloping, the writers reward us with one of the sweetest and unappreciated songs from Fiddler providing the most moving moment in the piece:

Little Bird, Little Chavaleh
I dont understand what’s happening today
Everything is all a blur
Gentle and kind and affectionate
The sweet little bird you were
Chavaleh, Chavaleh.

Little Bird, Little Chavaleh
You were always such a pretty little thing
Everybody’s favorite child
Gentle and kind and affectionate
The sweet little bird you were
Chavaleh, Chavaleh

This is careful and brilliant writing. At a moment when our favorite character in the play, the one we have had the opportunity to be alone with on stage while he talks to God, therefore making us part of his conscious as he navigates these moral choices, at the moment when he could, potentially be unlikeable to us, the writers allow him to sing such exquisitely beautiful lyrics. As he wistfully remembers the young girl who had stolen his heart as a child, now breaking his heart as a young woman, we the audience are allowed to weep with Tevye rather than judge him for the choice he has made.

“Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum”

You gotta love any show tune with Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum as a genuine lyric. If I Were a Rich Man is a gift to any actor privileged to play the role of Tevye. In just over three minutes they get to convey, on behalf of Tevye, their humor, their desire, their love for their wife, their reverence, their passion, their pride and their humility all finished with the last tableau of their raised arms to the sky on the final beat of the song (Yul Brynner’s old secret for demanding a rousing cheer from the audience at the end of his solos). And the melody of Rich Man is so infectious that it stays with you forever after one listen.

Often times, the strength of a production of Fiddler is reliant on the strength of the actor playing the role. Therefore, debates have ensued for decades over who is the quintessential Tevye. Zero Mostel originated the role on Broadway and Chaim Topol was awarded the part in the Oscar-winning film. Two different types of actors you will never find. I feel personally cheated that I was never able to see Mostel play this part, but listening to the original Broadway cast recording almost makes me feel like I saw him. His performance leaps out of the speakers and I swear I can see him on stage. I was fortunate enough to see the great Paul Lipson, who actually holds the record for playing the role more than any other actor, more than 2,000 times. He understudied Herschel Bernardi in a production back in 1981 and it was my first exposure to the greatness of the role. I suppose you never forget your first Tevye.

The movie version of Fiddler is an astounding achievement as a film. It beautifully portrayed the realism of life in Anatevka and in being as realistic as it was, it ultimately failed as an adaptation of the stage musical. You see, by being as realistic as it was, it lost all of the charm that the stage production had. The stage production is presented as a whimsical fable that deals with very serious issues. The film comes across as a very serious important film which deals with serious and important issues…. Where’s the fun? The magic of Fiddler is that it addresses these serious issues without ever being too serious, or,worse, taking itself too seriously. It is written in a rhythm and pace that never forgets there is a live audience in the room with the actors. It never gets bogged down in melodrama. The seriousness of the situations sit in beautiful contrast to the joy and lighthearted love that the characters have for each other. In the film, the joy is gone and with it the magic that makes Fiddler so great.

Topol’s performance in the film is solid, it’s not his fault that the realism of the film undercuts his character’s charm and our sympathies for him. But, the good news is that Topol is now touring the USA with what they are calling his “Farewell Tour” of Fiddler, and if it is coming to your town, see it and take a child. Here is a link to the itinerary for the Fiddler tour.

So as the finale for this week’s Sunday Matinee, I offer a rare video of the great Zero Mostel. Out of costume, but bringing that joy and exuberance to the song that will always be his. Enjoy the magic:

Stage Right is on Facebook