Moose Murders

[followspot]

In what ways was the script revised?

[chanel]

He took out the characters' racism and made them a little smarter (but not that smart). On a separate note, Broadway had a much nicer set, obviously. I remember a winding stairway. This production was a bit claustro.

[ken8631]

Saw it yesterday... It wasn't that bad, and was actually entertaining! Glad we went and saw it, it was better than some of what we have seen on Broadway actually (something we saw at Studio 54 comes vaguely to mind, but can't remember the name... something with "poet" in the name)

Even bought the poster for $10, a bit overpriced since it wasn't even on poster stock or signed, but figured not many of them are being sold so it may be a collector's item - lol

Only 7 rows of I think 12 seats in each row, but was pretty full for the Sunday 2pm performance...

[iluvtheatertrash]

Aw, thanks, Ken! Appreciate your kind words and I'm glad to hear you had fun. That was our goal: just having fun.

We weren't quite sure what to price the posters at, so I appreciate your feedback on this. We do have some signed ones that I wish our staff had offered you first -- if you are able to stop by and want to exchange your poster for a signed one, I'd be glad to arrange it for you.

Again, thanks for coming and so glad you had fun!

[ken8631]

We're in North Jersey, so not sure when we're heading into the city again - probably to see the Drood play before it closes (I'm a big Stephanie J. Block fan).... Nice little theatre!

Unfortunately they didn't have a bag for the poster either, so ended up putting it in with our Katz's leftovers, not a good idea - lol

Anyway, it definitely was a fun play to watch, wife loved the mooses's head prop being worn (hey - did notice the moose's head on the wall disappeared...) Lots of laughter behind us as well - one lady laughing hysterically while the blind guy was eating a banana (not sure why...)

[Matt Rogers]

Iluvtheatertrash, what's your next project? Just curious.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Our next production is RAGS, which opens on May 28th.

This show was very different than what we normally do. I usually prefer minimalist productions that focus more on reinventing the wheel, but we really just thought - after a depressing play like YENTL (our fall production) - that this would be a lot of good, silly fun.

RAGS will feature a heavily revised libretto, and a multi-media production.

Also: We work on a very small, shoestring budget which the theatre rental costs take up most of. It's part of why our minimalist and conceptual productions are more successful. The less we spend, the easier it is to turn a profit, which is the ultimate goal as we donate a portion of it to charity. This time, that organization is GLSEN.

[emilyfaye48]

Who is revising the libretto?

[somethingwicked]

A review from Isherwood in the Times. Though it is pointedly negative, I think it's at least a positive sign for the company that someone of his significance reviewed the production as opposed to a third stringer.

His observations seem pretty on par with everyone else's.

http://theater.nytimes.com/2013/02/02/theater/reviews/moose-murders-from-beautiful-soup-theater-collective.html?_r=0

[Dangerous Jade]

to Emily - I think Steven of Beautiful Soup is revising the libretto.

[somethingwicked]

That can't possibly be the case. Why would living artists like Stephen Schwartz and Charles Strouse agree to license a show of theirs and let someone else do the revisions without their involvement, especially in New York?

Frankly, I'm rather shocked Beautiful Soup even got the rights to RAGS. I know for a fact Roundabout had the rights within the last few years and had been planning a reading of it to explore the possibility of producing it (I'm not sure if that ever happened.) I would have assumed Schwartz and Strouse would be hesitant to allow a New York production in hopes of a more high profile one eventually materializing. Didn't Michael Reidel say similar things in a story last year when a college in the city did the show?

[darquegk]

The Marymount Manhattan production last year was a revised libretto as well. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a pilot for a revision of that revision, to see how it runs after the tweaks.

[iluvtheatertrash]

We do indeed have the rights. There was a lot of back and forth, but we got 'em!

As for the libretto, like our revisions for A DOLL'S LIFE, this will be a combination of two different versions of the show. There is no text being added that wasn't written by the creators of the show. We are simply restoring some sections that were cut, and cutting some sections that were added. All with permission of both Strouse and Schwartz. Primarily, you'll notice the changes at the end of Act I, where we've restored (with permission) Nathan and Rebecca's reunion (which was cut for the now licensed version that played Jewish Rep).

[iluvtheatertrash]

I shouldn't have said "heavily revised". It's really not all that heavy a revision when you sit down and compare it to the other existing librettos. It is very close to the Texas Lyric Stage libretto.

[songanddanceman2]

I really like the idea of a theatre company taking on 'lost works' i think it's interesting and if the work was a flop the first time around and can be rescued in some way then wonderful (i still stand behind the new Carrie and think they did a fantastic job). The problem with this show is NOTHING in the show was redeemable so the only reason to do it was for attention really (not always a bad thing), but with these very big reviews all been negative and slamming the set, direction etc then its only making the company look bad sadly.

[iluvtheatertrash]

TELL me about it, songanddanceman... Y'know, I didn't think we could "redeem" Moose Murders. But I thought that, 30 years later, people would be able to look at it in a different way and just have a good time. I never expected anyone to walk out declaring it belonged on Broadway, or should have a Pulitzer. I just thought it would be fun to revisit it.

I think in many ways some of the critics wanted to be a part of history by giving it yet another cantankerous reviews. Yes, our set is done cheaply, but we're a small company that operates on a shoestring with a charitable mission. I think it's something a lot of the critics chose to ignore (or simply forgot).

[iluvtheatertrash]

I should also add that revising the script was not our idea, but Mr. Bicknell's. This idea came from the fact that the Sam French script has a great deal of errors in it and some of them make the plot even more incomprehensible than it already is. Besides a few new lines, the script is rather similar to the original, with just a tad more "explanation".

[followspot]

Besides a few new lines, the script is rather similar to the original, with just a tad more "explanation".

Then why was it advertised as "shamelessly revised"?

I ask because "shamelessly revised" was a big turn-off to me — I was interested in seeing the play people saw in 1983, not a revision. "Shamelessly revised" indicated a new entity, in which I had much less (read: no) interest. (I can't even begin to fathom what "rather similar to the original" means.) I admire your mission, and really do wish you well — just letting you know how mixed the messages were/are on this production.

(And now here you are already backtracking on "heavily revised" re: Rags. I mean, c'mon — this is NYC — we're not theatre illiterates — these things matter.)

[ken8631]

If the intent was "that this would be a lot of good, silly fun", I think it was achieved. We had fun. It was actually MUCH better than "A Touch of the Poet" which we saw at Studio 54 awhile ago..... Also, I don't think the story was confusing at all... Just a few twists and turns....

Does it belong on Broadway? No

Was it fun? Yes!

Were we happy we went and saw it? Yes!

[iluvtheatertrash]

Followspot, Arthur didn't decided to revise the script until we were already well into pre-production mode. And billing it as "Shamelessly Revised" was Arthur's request. We were thrilled he was brave enough to revisit it, but I have come to realize that we should've done the original script. I don't disagree with you there. This was, in many ways, a big experiment for us.

I don't plan on advertising RAGS as heavily revised, but only mention it here because I know you're all interested in which version we are presenting. For the most part, you will already know the RAGS we are showing.

[iluvtheatertrash]

To those of you on here who've been so supportive, I really appreciate it. Some of the press was painful because I don't think everyone takes into consideration how tight our budget was, but I'm glad to know that some people were able to just let go and have fun. That was our only goal. Perhaps Mr. Bicknell's goal was a tad different.

[followspot]

Onward and upward! Looking forward to Rags!

[After Eight]

Let's face it. Nothing could ever replicate the otherworldly experience of the initial production of Moose Murders. That kind of thing happens once in a llfetime.

The revised version on view in this revival has lost many of the laughs that were in the original. Nonetheless, I still guffawed heartily at some of the more ludicrous lines and shenanigans, especially when the farcical antics kicked into high gear. And the sight of the man in the moose costume dancing while wielding a hatchet had me in stitches.

So all in all, it was fun. And I commend the company for allowing today's theatregoers the opportunity to get a taste of what this theatrical legend was like.

Now, how about revivals of Grandma's Diary, Springtime Folly, and How to Make a Man?