not logged in
| re: Neverland | |
Posted by:  |
pidunk 11:30 pm UTC 09/01/07 |
| In reply to: | Neverland - Bright_Eyes 08:14 pm UTC 09/01/07 |
| I love this post....but I don't really think the seventies Neverland "sucked" on the criteria of its limitations of productions but it was not expanded because the Workshop had certain stipulations....it was NOT to be converted to a full presentation on commercial stage, and reviews were NOT to be made of it. The fact that this was designed as a one-time performance was the element of its student workshop theme, which I feel squandered the talents and work placed into it. Probably the only way Jim could have salvaged this work was to do exactly what he DID do....take songs (which did not constitute full stage productions) and remodel them to other forms....but he did not have the option to remake the actual play, any more than he had such right to do so with the purchased product of The Dream Engine after Papp took hold of it. More recently such rights have been legislatively reverted in some instances, but I don't know if it applies to these works. Whether or not Neverland "sucked" probably has to do with expectations......musically, dramatically, it was much different than anything else out there....but if different means that something "sucked" that is not a barometer that many talented people would be immune to. Economic limitations and production limitations could have made this play less than it could have been with a larger budget, and mind one that there is not much time differential between this production and the album Bat Out Of Hell, which I think is the scale I would like to use to measure the play's potential in an ideal setting. All else you say about vision and design is very well put. Best, Susan > I believe a lot of Jim Steinman fans have an > over-romanticized view of what "Neverland" is supposed to > be. If the BAT musical is finished it may force them to > revise that part of their Steinman mythology. > > If Jim's current fans were sent back to the audience of > the 1977 workshop, they might find it low-budget, minimal > and uninspiring. If it had been the greatest thing since > Total Eclipse of the Heart, there probably would have been > more than just a brief workshop production of it. In many > ways, it may have sucked. > > I also think some Jim Steinman fans are too rigid about > the Neverland concept and storyline, where they expect it > to fit what was done in that 1977 workshop. Chances are, > the Spielberg movie that Jim was rumored to want to make, > and the current BAT musical project, are very different > from the tiny 1977 play. > > Songwriters have always had a lot of tricks to help them > get started writing something. Diane Warren says she > watches a movie and then tries to write a song that fits > the movie, but without getting too specific. Many > songwriters use their own personal experiences to get > started. > > According to interviews, a high percentage of what Jim > writes is "from" "Neverland", and this may mean that > thinking about parts of a hypothetical Neverland story > helps him get started. It may be Jim's writing trick. That > really is very different from there being a finished > project based on Peter Pan. Neverland The Muse and > Neverland The Play don't have to be the same thing. > > It's clear that Jim for decades had some interest in a > project based on a Peter Pan storyline. It remains to be > seen if one attempt at a musical based on a Peter Pan > storyline will even be to Jim Steinman's liking. And > whether audiences will find it a good fit for Jim's music > also remains to be seen. > > If the BAT musical is finished, fans may later conclude > that the Tanz storyline was a better fit for Jim's music > than a Peter Pan storyline. > > Some fans probably think of the BAT musical as Jim's > Ultimate Project or his Grand Vision. It may be that in a > way but it also is subject to the same limitations as any > other real musical theater project. Jim can set the > direction in some ways but he can't control everything. He > will have to give up authority, and live with the existing > habits that his director, choreographer, designers etc. > bring to it. Also the project will still be expected to > make money, and may follow commercial instincts rather > than the vision Jim had in the 1970's. > > The thing about Neverland for Jim's fans is that they > build up their ideas about it just based on what they're > told, without ever seeing a full production of it. There's > no reality check, where they go to a show and see if they > like it or not. There's really no way the BAT musical can > fit the myth some fans have for Neverland, but it could > still be a worthwhile show to attend. > > Most of the people who go to see it, will not already know > all the songs, maybe a few but not all. And they won't > have any theories about what the storyline or Neverland is > supposed to be, or what significance it is supposed to > have. For them it's a new rock musical with new songs for > pure entertainment purposes. The show is probably being > made with those spectators in mind, not for the > obsessives, or the Steinman vision purist who has already > memorized all the songs in the show. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | Presumptuous? - rockfenris2005 02:30 am UTC 09/02/07 |
| Next: | re: Neverland - Pudding 09:45 pm UTC 09/01/07 |
| Thread: | |