I want to go on the razzle - just joshing. I thought this play was super funny and bawdy. It has a nice large cast, a recognizable playwright, no dialects or accents required, so I vote yes. Also, very interesting history of the adaptations of this play. Perhaps, that will bring out the real theatre nerds.
Nicely constructed, fun farce. Biggest challenge or the arena is multiple scene changes, would probably force us to do this in three acts. I think we could do it and most technical issues could be addressed creatively. I think it is a challenge we should take on.
A fun show with a number of technical challenges. I suspect audiences will like it. I would keep it in the mix. If the Board questions the title, we could recommend Matchmaker as a substitute.
Linda Sue said... I will give the same caveat I always do with reading - I dislike Stoppard so much that it is difficult for me to read him with objectivity. This play is no exception- it's not my cup of tea because I find Stoppard's writing pretentious. I weary of the endless attempts at cleverness - some much more effective than others. Other than my reaction to Stoppard, I'm wondering about set issues with a trap door and such a varety of set locations. And as a Thornton Wilder lover (again, question my objectivity) - I'm wondering why we don't just do The Matchmaker because audiences know the play and know the playwright.
Chuck Torrey said... Having read this again (last time was probably 20 years ago), I now regret bringing it up. While the Stoppard name seems to be box office magic for us (and we do need magic in the summer), this script, funny as it is, seems to me far beyond our technical means to adequately produce. Fraid I have to vote no.
Sarah lemanczyk said... I'm so glad you brought it up - I loved this. I thought it was a delight to read. . . as far as the tech. stuff goes . . . I think this can be done to a great degree without being literal. Take the success of Spamalot, now take the horse scene - we could just slap some coconuts together . . . The whole story is so full of delightful foolishness that I think we could get away with being delightfully impish in the staging. . . It's a hoot. I vote a big YES.
Arona said... Choosing between the two plays this one is better. It's fast paced, funny, characters more developed. The trap door - it's in a shop, they could appear out of a trunk or a cabinet. It's not an insurmountable problem. As Sarah suggested, if it's done as a cartoon approach you have a cartoon like horse. When well paced the chink joke will be accepted. My vote is Yes. Arona
Dave Metcalf said... Apparently my earlier blog-ments got lost in the ozone, since they don't appear now. Short version: I wouldn't vote no, but I'm not enthusiastic, either. It's wilder than the Wilder, but lacks the charm. Choosing either RAZZLE or MATCHMAKER, would probably result in some viewers leaving the theater mumbling, "It's no HELLO DOLLY", anyway. Did somebody suggest simply choosing a different Neil Simon play? If that's a viable option, (since we still, technically, lack an "American classic playwright" in the current mix), may I toss my favorites out there, without muddying the waters too much? RUMORS-small scale, up-beat, contemporary; and FOOLS-goofy, slapstick, over-the-top silly, but delightful (might also resonate as a poke at the dour Russian angst of UNCLE VANYA).
Sherry Wilson said... I would prefer RAZZLE to STRAW HAT. I do think the script needs cutting, however.
Rick Fournier said... Finally finished this sprawling foolishness. Puns, wisecracks, cleverness, smart talk and a stage full of sex maniacs. What's not to like? And Stoppard sells. But this play is a mess and technically, I would assume, quite challenging. I wouldn't vote against it, but perhaps we can find something as good, or better. I have quite a soft spot for "Matchmaker," but perhaps every body who wants to see it, has.
I love this play! I think it would be a great holiday show: silly fluff, overflowing with absurd situations and characters, plus wonderful bad jokes that I think people would love. (My favorite: "I cooked his goose, and everything was going fine, but then I got confused and goosed his cook.") Technically, it seems to me full of major challenges, not the least of which would be the Prop Department's responsibility to produce "The Blue Danube" with bagpipes in the orchestration. Also, there's one bit of politically incorrect dialog ("chinking of glasses") that would simply have to be cut. But I think we should take the time to investigate if we could do this one.
Haven't read this one in years. So, I just finished watching the 1980s-era British production broadcast on PBS' Great Performances. (Yes, I still have it on VHS tape, in case anyone wants to borrow it.) They solved the horse problem with a horse costume with two people inside. I followed along with the script and found a number of small differences - either line flubs by the actors or deliberate choices, I couldn't always tell, but some of them were quite funny. There are plot elements that I think are funnier than Matchmaker, and the puns and Malapropisms are clever. I would say "yes."
9 Comments:
I want to go on the razzle - just joshing. I thought this play was super funny and bawdy. It has a nice large cast, a recognizable playwright, no dialects or accents required, so I vote yes. Also, very interesting history of the adaptations of this play. Perhaps, that will bring out the real theatre nerds.
Classic! Had to say it. :)
Nicely constructed, fun farce. Biggest challenge or the arena is multiple scene changes, would probably force us to do this in three acts. I think we could do it and most technical issues could be addressed creatively. I think it is a challenge we should take on.
Stu Naber
A fun show with a number of technical challenges. I suspect audiences will like it. I would keep it in the mix. If the Board questions the title, we could recommend Matchmaker as a substitute.
I vote Yes.
HERE ARE COMMENTS FROM PAST COMMITTEES:
Linda Sue said...
I will give the same caveat I always do with reading - I dislike Stoppard so much that it is difficult for me to read him with objectivity. This play is no exception- it's not my cup of tea because I find Stoppard's writing pretentious. I weary of the endless attempts at cleverness - some much more effective than others. Other than my reaction to Stoppard, I'm wondering about set issues with a trap door and such a varety of set locations. And as a Thornton Wilder lover (again, question my objectivity) - I'm wondering why we don't just do The Matchmaker because audiences know the play and know the playwright.
Chuck Torrey said...
Having read this again (last time was probably 20 years ago), I now regret bringing it up. While the Stoppard name seems to be box office magic for us (and we do need magic in the summer), this script, funny as it is, seems to me far beyond our technical means to adequately produce. Fraid I have to vote no.
Sarah lemanczyk said...
I'm so glad you brought it up - I loved this. I thought it was a delight to read. . . as far as the tech. stuff goes . . . I think this can be done to a great degree without being literal. Take the success of Spamalot, now take the horse scene - we could just slap some coconuts together . . . The whole story is so full of delightful foolishness that I think we could get away with being delightfully impish in the staging. . .
It's a hoot. I vote a big YES.
Arona said...
Choosing between the two plays this one is better. It's fast paced, funny, characters more developed. The trap door - it's in a shop, they could appear out of a trunk or a cabinet. It's not an insurmountable problem. As Sarah suggested, if it's done as a cartoon approach you have a cartoon like horse. When well paced the chink joke will be accepted. My vote is Yes. Arona
Dave Metcalf said...
Apparently my earlier blog-ments got lost in the ozone, since they don't appear now. Short version: I wouldn't vote no, but I'm not enthusiastic, either. It's wilder than the Wilder, but lacks the charm. Choosing either RAZZLE or MATCHMAKER, would probably result in some viewers leaving the theater mumbling, "It's no HELLO DOLLY", anyway.
Did somebody suggest simply choosing a different Neil Simon play? If that's a viable option, (since we still, technically, lack an "American classic playwright" in the current mix), may I toss my favorites out there, without muddying the waters too much? RUMORS-small scale, up-beat, contemporary; and FOOLS-goofy, slapstick, over-the-top silly, but delightful (might also resonate as a poke at the dour Russian angst of UNCLE VANYA).
Sherry Wilson said...
I would prefer RAZZLE to STRAW HAT. I do think the script needs cutting, however.
Rick Fournier said...
Finally finished this sprawling foolishness. Puns, wisecracks, cleverness, smart talk and a stage full of sex maniacs. What's not to like? And Stoppard sells. But this play is a mess and technically, I would assume, quite challenging. I wouldn't vote against it, but perhaps we can find something as good, or better. I have quite a soft spot for "Matchmaker," but perhaps every body who wants to see it, has.
Reread the play for this go round, it is funny, needs to be fast paced, people enjoy farce.
Hello Dolly was mentioned. Is that a musical we want to consider instead of Razzle? Hello Dolly certainly has name recognition.
My vote is yes for On the Razzle.
I liked it. It was baudy and slapstick, fun and fast moving. There are a lot of scene changes, but I think they are doable. Yes for me.
I love this play! I think it would be a great holiday show: silly fluff, overflowing with absurd situations and characters, plus wonderful bad jokes that I think people would love. (My favorite: "I cooked his goose, and everything was going fine, but then I got confused and goosed his cook.") Technically, it seems to me full of major challenges, not the least of which would be the Prop Department's responsibility to produce "The Blue Danube" with bagpipes in the orchestration. Also, there's one bit of politically incorrect dialog ("chinking of glasses") that would simply have to be cut. But I think we should take the time to investigate if we could do this one.
Haven't read this one in years. So, I just finished watching the 1980s-era British production broadcast on PBS' Great Performances. (Yes, I still have it on VHS tape, in case anyone wants to borrow it.) They solved the horse problem with a horse costume with two people inside. I followed along with the script and found a number of small differences - either line flubs by the actors or deliberate choices, I couldn't always tell, but some of them were quite funny. There are plot elements that I think are funnier than Matchmaker, and the puns and Malapropisms are clever. I would say "yes."
A tech nightmare. The Matchmaker is better and I'm not really keen on that.
Post a Comment
<< Home