|
|
Post by Yonkers on Dec 27, 2007 21:57:23 GMT 11
I've heard that the shows for the 2008 season of The Production Company season are:
FOLLIES
DAMN YANKEES
MAME
|
|
|
|
Post by accentuate on Dec 28, 2007 13:15:17 GMT 11
I've heard that the shows for the 2008 season of The Production Company season are: FOLLIES DAMN YANKEES MAME I hope so. They are all good. I love Follies. Although I wish they would extend their rehearsal period slightly if they insist on doing dance-based shows. Dance shows are great as long as the dance looks tight and the ensemble dont look terrified that its not all in yet. |
|
|
|
Post by Yonkers on Dec 28, 2007 16:59:12 GMT 11
Agreed that they are all good shows, however how will they cast FOLLIES? The first Australian production had a cast that will never be equalled - all genuine troopers of the first order. Perryman, Lamond, Bradley, Salter, Fitzgibbon, Fiander etc You'll never get a line up like that again. Why MAME again? OK it is their 10th Anniversary and MAME was their first show, but it was hardly a triumph. Why would they want to drag it out again?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hannah on Jan 1, 2008 19:14:16 GMT 11
Well, then if the first time round it was so excellent, there's no point in ever doing it again. Anywhere. In the whole world.
That kind of attitude really frustrates me. The first time around it might have been amazing, but that production is not currently playing. In the game of musical theatre, you can't only do a show once - we're in the business of reproducing shows again and again (all over the world) - and trying to find something new in them each time.
If a new production will never measure up for you, then all you have to do is never see Follies again in your life (and risk missing a better production than the one you've seen). For all the other people out there who like to see shows they've never seen before, and who like to see shows done in different ways, I'm sure doing Follies this time around will be a great idea.
No production is perfect. Every production has its strengths and weaknesses. And most important of all, the quality of a show is completely subjective - you may have liked it, but the person sitting behind you may have loathed it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yonkers on Jan 2, 2008 11:51:10 GMT 11
Hannah, you seem to be missing my point. The first production of FOLLIES back in 1993 had a cast that was appropriate and you'll NEVER get a line up like that again. There was an element of truth/parallel in the roles that the cast played with their real lives in several cases. If you aren't of the era where you know of the careers of that cast then I can't help you in describing this.
Sure, there will be other productions of FOLLIES but what you will get are just actors playing the roles, that same connection (and great theatrical legacy) will be missing.
|
|
Lana
Ensemble Enthusiast
If only life were a song and dance number...
Posts: 169
|
Post by Lana on Jan 2, 2008 20:12:44 GMT 11
Yonkers, I don't want to persecute you here, but I found your comment to Hannah to be patronising and I agree with what she's saying.
I don't know if it was your intention, but what I read from your message was "if you're too young to have seen the performance I'm referring to, you don't know what you're talking about and can't possibly understand." In 1993 I was still in primary school in Tasmania - does that mean I'm not entitled to an opinion now? No, I didn't see the show you're referring to and no, I don't know the history of all the performers (and I'm not about to go and look it up as I don't feel that's necessary to prove my point).
It reminds me very much of people who trot out the old "If you haven't seen the original cast then you're not a REAL fan" and I can't tell you how much I hate that. Original doesn't always mean best. Maybe we don't get another cast as amazing as the 1993 one apparently was, but that doesn't mean they should never stage the show again. If you don't want to see it, don't. The new generation of theatre fans that have nothing to compare it to will go and see it instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yonkers on Jan 2, 2008 23:47:18 GMT 11
Oh Lana don't get your undies all bunched up! I think it is crazy for you to read into my posting what YOU said -"if you're too young to have seen the performance I'm refering to, you don't know what you are talking about and can't possibly understand". My posting does not read like that at all. If anyone is being patronising it is Hannah to me - but I chose to ignore that and refer to the magic of a wonderful cast on that night in 1993, and in this case - no aplogies - it would be a case of original does mean best. There was history there. Jeez.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hannah on Jan 4, 2008 9:27:42 GMT 11
Yonkers, I find that really offensive. In no part of my post was I being patronising towards you. How could I be? There's nothing to patronise. I am arguing that although a production may have been great, there is always a possibility that the next might be even better, and to not put another production on because it can never beat the previous one misses out on the chance that the next might be better. You are arguing that one production was the best it could ever be and nothing will beat it - ever. If taken the way Lana and I have read your post, you also act superior towards - and hence patronise - those who weren't around to see this brilliant production. To patronise is to act condescendly towards someone who you believe knows less than you. I see a lot of that in your attitude towards me in your posts in this thread, and none of that in my posts towards you.
Putting all of that aside, I still think it's ridiculous to be in the game of theatre if you believe that perfection is so readily gained. I would argue that no show is perfect - that all have their strengths and weaknesses. Most important of all, every script can be interpreted in a different way by a different creative team. Thus a show will never get old as long as we don't seek to replicate a past production. And, dare I say it, a different interpretation may be even better than the one you saw before.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yonkers on Jan 4, 2008 10:45:36 GMT 11
Really Hannah, it must be a terrible burden for you to struggle through life with absolutely no sense of humour.
Can I guess (from how you write) that you work as a school teacher?
|
|
Lana
Ensemble Enthusiast
If only life were a song and dance number...
Posts: 169
|
Post by Lana on Jan 5, 2008 23:37:38 GMT 11
Can we drop this now?
Yonkers - You think the original production will never be beaten. Fine. You've made your point clear. I think you come off as abrasive and condescending but clearly that's my issue not yours.
There's no point in arguing "he said she said" back and forth. Perhaps you're right and the original production was the best. Does it matter? As Hannah rightly pointed out, that production is no longer running. Those of us who didn't see it did perhaps miss out on the show of a lifetime, but there's not a lot we can do about that. I've never seen Follies and I'm sure I'll enjoy this interpretation of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hannah on Jan 6, 2008 15:58:39 GMT 11
Yeah I'm going to leave this now - it's really not worth the bother. That last post by Yonkers really made my eyes roll.
So, Follies, Damn Yankees and Mame hey? Looks like a good line up for Melbournites.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yonkers on May 12, 2008 0:30:42 GMT 11
Encores! in New York are currently presenting NO, NO, NANETTE. Here are some production photos from Broadwayworld.com that show just how smart a concert presentation can look. Production Company PLEASE take note, oh, their costumes fit too. broadwayworld.com/viewcolumn.cfm?colid=27723 |
|
violet
Backyard Balladeer
Posts: 20
|
Post by violet on May 16, 2008 9:21:13 GMT 11
I've heard that Alex Rathgeber will be coming back to be in Mame.
|
|
|
|
Post by Buff on May 21, 2008 15:03:01 GMT 11
|
|
|
|
Post by Buff on May 29, 2008 15:25:36 GMT 11
Tickets are on general sale now. For infomation on the show you want, click on the show name. FolliesDamn YankeesMameBuff  |
|
