It does require a few "period" things: lots of smoking and furs! But I love this play, and we'd get a huge turnout at auditions. It would also be a hit with the audience - young and old.
even with some stereotypical views of women that make me kinda crazy, I love that this play is filled with intelligent, tough witty women - and yeah, bitches - but often for a reason. Demanding in terms of costume but what a glorious opportunity for a lot of actresses to show their comedic strengths in a ensemble piece. Those opportunities are few and far between.
I think we should do this because of the opportunity for female actors. I'm not crazy about it, but I'm sure it will draw because others love it and because of the large cast.
I agree that it does provide a lot of female roles and that it does have design and costume demands. I can't say that it does much for me, but may appeal to a portion of our audience. I would keep it in the mix for now.
One of the challenges for all of us "older" folks is that we've been there, done that for so long it is difficult to remember that there was a time when we discovered these old chestnuts the first time and enjoyed them so much. I recall seeing this onstage the first time and it was such fun. I think we should defintiely leave it in the mix.
Once I realized that there are ways of having all those different settings, I decided Yes. Agreed, lots of opportunities for females ages 12 on up. Some of the lines that might cause, as LSA says, one to wince, can easily be cut or changed. I suggest reading Clare Boothe Luce's 1966 version which is in 2 acts. In the revised version there are the same "wince" lines, the only out of era jarring line is a reference to the Beatles that can be changed back to Shirley Temple.
This would be easily cast at TRP. The writing is snappy and witty with some nicely drawn characters. I'm concerned about the design challenges. While I don't think one would have to literally follow the set description, it would take some doing to establish location for each scene, and I don't think current audiences have much patience for sitting in the dark for changes. Not really something I'd be interested in seeing, but might be reasonable to put it on the slate if people think there is an audience for it.
Yes. I think this play is desirable just because of the large number of female roles. My experience is the women outnumber the men at least four to one and are frustrated by the competition. This will give them a chance.
i love this play. love it. and i think it'd be a draw for audience and actors - and in good hands, the dated stuff is just stuff, as enjoyable as a reno divorce or a whole lot of pearls.
10 Comments:
A great play. A major design challenge, but we did it before and we could do it again. And just think how many women we could make happy.
It does require a few "period" things: lots of smoking and furs! But I love this play, and we'd get a huge turnout at auditions. It would also be a hit with the audience - young and old.
even with some stereotypical views of women that make me kinda crazy, I love that this play is filled with intelligent, tough witty women - and yeah, bitches - but often for a reason. Demanding in terms of costume but what a glorious opportunity for a lot of actresses to show their comedic strengths in a ensemble piece. Those opportunities are few and far between.
I think we should do this because of the opportunity for female actors. I'm not crazy about it, but I'm sure it will draw because others love it and because of the large cast.
I agree that it does provide a lot of female roles and that it does have design and costume demands. I can't say that it does much for me, but may appeal to a portion of our audience. I would keep it in the mix for now.
One of the challenges for all of us "older" folks is that we've been there, done that for so long it is difficult to remember that there was a time when we discovered these old chestnuts the first time and enjoyed them so much. I recall seeing this onstage the first time and it was such fun. I think we should defintiely leave it in the mix.
Once I realized that there are ways of having all those different settings, I decided Yes.
Agreed, lots of opportunities for females ages 12 on up. Some of the lines that might cause, as LSA says, one to wince, can easily be cut or changed.
I suggest reading Clare Boothe Luce's 1966 version which is in 2 acts. In the revised version there are the same "wince" lines, the only out of era jarring line is a reference to the Beatles that can be changed back to Shirley Temple.
This would be easily cast at TRP. The writing is snappy and witty with some nicely drawn characters. I'm concerned about the design challenges. While I don't think one would have to literally follow the set description, it would take some doing to establish location for each scene, and I don't think current audiences have much patience for sitting in the dark for changes. Not really something I'd be interested in seeing, but might be reasonable to put it on the slate if people think there is an audience for it.
Stu
Yes. I think this play is desirable just because of the large number of female roles. My experience is the women outnumber the men at least four to one and are frustrated by the competition. This will give them a chance.
i love this play. love it. and i think it'd be a draw for audience and actors - and in good hands, the dated stuff is just stuff, as enjoyable as a reno divorce or a whole lot of pearls.
big ups from me.
Post a Comment
<< Home