jetblack_diva
|
WHY?Why is Secret Garden so Under Rated? I just don't understand!
The music is amazing and the characters are loveable what is wrong with it? Seriously!
|
ConverseSneaker
|
Because it was on Broadway the same year as Miss Saigon. 
|
The Very Angry Woman
|
And it's hard to stage. Not a lot of people want to go the extra mile to find kids that talented.
|
Melindaisy
|
Plus -
1) the cast really isn't that large, so high school or groups who are used to large musicals may pass it by
2) the music is not easy, particularly the chorus number (Storms)
3) a director must put a great deal of thought and planning into blocking the show so that it flows easily from scene to scene.
|
ConverseSneaker
|
| Melindaisy wrote: | Plus -
1) the cast really isn't that large, so high school or groups who are used to large musicals may pass it by
|
Actually I think it's good size. There's plenty of parts, lots of cameos and a chorus that can be as small or as big as you want.
|
Melindaisy
|
Yes, there are lots of good roles, and cameos...
However, I've seen it done by a high school with a large chorus. They used different people for the dreamers in each scene, and I think it got lost on the audience who theses characters were supoosed to be. For a school which is used to having all 100 of its members in the show, this is not a good choice.
Also, many schools are used to making use of a good bit of dance in their musicals... something that The Secret Garden doesn't have in it aside from"Come Spirit, Come Charm".
Personally, I think the show has a lovely cast size, just perfect for community theatre. I adored performing in the show!
|
Sweeney Hyde
|
As for the Original Broadway Production, I'm at a loss for why it didn't gain a bigger following and thus be a better known show.
Let's look at that season. The big shows were Miss Siagon, Once on This Island, andThe Will Rogers Follies, apart from The Secret Garden.
Now, Miss Siagon was going to have a following and get some recognition from the Les Miserables fans due to the authors and some of the stars.
Once on This Island...well...it just wasn't that big of a deal.
Will Rogers Follies...now it baffles me that it won the Tony that year...why?
The Secret Garden had a lot going for it. It stared Mandy Patinkin and Robert Westenberg, two huge names in theatre at the time. It was featuring a fresh writting team. Why did this not gain a larger footing? Was it because it's known as a children's story? Did having a little girl as the main character who also happens to become an orphan make people think "Annie of the Victorian Period" and thus stay away? I'm just...confused as to it's small fanbase.
|
The Very Angry Woman
|
The Secret Garden is too heavy-handed and boring for kids, and too many adults just think of it as a "kiddie show."
My theory.
|
Brigantine
|
| Sweeney Hyde wrote: | Will Rogers Follies...now it baffles me that it won the Tony that year...why?
|
Have you SEEN the show? A good production of it? It is very entertaining, moving, good music, good characters, dance, and all as a tribute to an awesome person. Our audiences LOVED it. Everyone was crying by the end.
|
Pannic
|
If the Original London Cast Recording is a good thing to base an opinion on... I did not like Miss Saigon...
As for The Secret Garden, you can make it work for a large cast if you simply make an ensemble out of the Dreamers. The Storms can be a pain, though.
|
jetblack_diva
|
| Melindaisy wrote: | Plus -
1) the cast really isn't that large, so high school or groups who are used to large musicals may pass it by
2) the music is not easy, particularly the chorus number (Storms)
3) a director must put a great deal of thought and planning into blocking the show so that it flows easily from scene to scene. |
Whats wrong with a challenge
|
Melindaisy
|
nothing is wrong with a challenge. Personally, I'd rather do something that makes me exercise my creativity....
But the question was why is the show under rated ans not perfomed as much as some other plays.
Some people don't like to work that hard....
|
zombiefl12
|
One of our local theaters is doing the show this spring, and I had barely heard about it until that was announced. However, after listening through the music I think it's great and do wish it was more well-known
|
Brigantine
|
As a show, it's pretty good, but as an ADAPTATION of the novel, which many people know, it's not so hot.
|
ConverseSneaker
|
^why do you think it's not a good adaption of the book? I'm curious about your reasoning on this.
I actually think it's better than the book, and I loved it when I was younger, and would watch the movie all the time.
|
Glissando
|
| The Very Angry Woman wrote: | | And it's hard to stage. Not a lot of people want to go the extra mile to find kids that talented. |
Our Mary was 16. But she looked younger, so it worked.
|
Melindaisy
|
| ConverseSneaker wrote: | ^why do you think it's not a good adaption of the book? I'm curious about your reasoning on this.
I actually think it's better than the book, and I loved it when I was younger, and would watch the movie all the time. |
To be a good adaptation of the novel it would need to be true to the novel. The musical The Secret Garden is true in the spirit, the lesson of the novel, but it is not true in the telling of the story, and some of the characters used. Among other things (granted I read the novel years ago, but I think this is how I remember it).....Lily (Lilias) is mentioned very little, and her ghost is not in the novel. There are no "Dreamers". I don't believe that Mary's mother even has a name. In the novel, I believe that Lilias is sister to Mary's father, not her mother. Martha and Dickon's mother plays a large part in the action in the novel.
I'm not saying that the musical isn't good... I love it! But, it is not a true adaptation of the novel. Even some of the film versions that exist are not true to the novel. I know in one (the one with Maggie Smith as Medlock) Lily and Rose are twin sisters.
There are tremendous difficulties in distilling a good sized novel down to a 2+ hour show. I think the use of Lily and the dreamers to help Mary was a wonderful idea. And, of course, Lily's interaction with Archie, and his ultimate redemption, brings that element of romance that is expected in a musical.
|
jetblack_diva
|
wow now i don't want to read the book i was seriously thinking about it and now i know that the musical is def. better in my oppinion
|
ConverseSneaker
|
| Melindaisy wrote: | | ConverseSneaker wrote: | ^why do you think it's not a good adaption of the book? I'm curious about your reasoning on this.
I actually think it's better than the book, and I loved it when I was younger, and would watch the movie all the time. |
To be a good adaptation of the novel it would need to be true to the novel. The musical The Secret Garden is true in the spirit, the lesson of the novel, but it is not true in the telling of the story, and some of the characters used. Among other things (granted I read the novel years ago, but I think this is how I remember it).....Lily (Lilias) is mentioned very little, and her ghost is not in the novel. There are no "Dreamers". I don't believe that Mary's mother even has a name. In the novel, I believe that Lilias is sister to Mary's father, not her mother. Martha and Dickon's mother plays a large part in the action in the novel.
I'm not saying that the musical isn't good... I love it! But, it is not a true adaptation of the novel. Even some of the film versions that exist are not true to the novel. I know in one (the one with Maggie Smith as Medlock) Lily and Rose are twin sisters.
There are tremendous difficulties in distilling a good sized novel down to a 2+ hour show. I think the use of Lily and the dreamers to help Mary was a wonderful idea. And, of course, Lily's interaction with Archie, and his ultimate redemption, brings that element of romance that is expected in a musical. |
I know that is is not a perfect adaption of the book for all the reasons you have pointed out, but I still think it's a great adaption. Isn't that the point of the word adaption? To adapt means to make something fit?
|
Pannic
|
| Melindaisy wrote: | | ConverseSneaker wrote: | ^why do you think it's not a good adaption of the book? I'm curious about your reasoning on this.
I actually think it's better than the book, and I loved it when I was younger, and would watch the movie all the time. |
To be a good adaptation of the novel it would need to be true to the novel. The musical The Secret Garden is true in the spirit, the lesson of the novel, but it is not true in the telling of the story, and some of the characters used. Among other things (granted I read the novel years ago, but I think this is how I remember it).....Lily (Lilias) is mentioned very little, and her ghost is not in the novel. There are no "Dreamers". I don't believe that Mary's mother even has a name. In the novel, I believe that Lilias is sister to Mary's father, not her mother. Martha and Dickon's mother plays a large part in the action in the novel.
I'm not saying that the musical isn't good... I love it! But, it is not a true adaptation of the novel. Even some of the film versions that exist are not true to the novel. I know in one (the one with Maggie Smith as Medlock) Lily and Rose are twin sisters.
There are tremendous difficulties in distilling a good sized novel down to a 2+ hour show. I think the use of Lily and the dreamers to help Mary was a wonderful idea. And, of course, Lily's interaction with Archie, and his ultimate redemption, brings that element of romance that is expected in a musical. |
In addition, in the original story, it was an earthquake, not cholera, that killed them, and there was no Neville Craven either, I don't think.
|
Melindaisy
|
| ConverseSneaker wrote: |
I know that is is not a perfect adaption of the book for all the reasons you have pointed out, but I still think it's a great adaption. Isn't that the point of the word adaption? To adapt means to make something fit? |
I suppose that we would need to agree on a definition of good (or great).
Is it good in the sense that the product is of quality, or worthy of esteem? .... in my opinion, yes, it is. I think the show itself is well written, the music is absolutely lovely, and the concept of the dreamers very interesting.
Is it good in that it has the appropriate qualities to fit its purpose?. .. again yes..... it tells the basic story in the frame of a musical, and tells it well.
Is it good in that it gives pleasure? ...... well, that is subjective.... but, for me, yes it is.
Is it good in that it is acceptable as true or genuine? .......... Here is where we get into problems. There are many changes in the characters (you are right , Pannic, I don't think Neville... one of the most interesting characters in the musical... is in the novel) and in some events ( again Pannic, right... it was an earthquake, at least in the one film version). Is it a literal translation from the novel to the stage? no. So if that is what people use to judge how "good" an adaptation it is, then no would be the answer, in my opinion.
Look at the adaptation of Wicked ( and I don't want to open a can of worms here so don't anyone start going off on Wicked, we are not debating it here...). The musical itself is successful. People enjoy it. It translates the novel to the realm of musical comedy. However, it changes characters from the novel, changes situations, changes the whole feeling of the book. Most people do not consider it a "good" adaptation of the novel, yet many people really love the musical.
I think it is a rare thing for people to be satisfied with the translation of a novel to the stage or screen. There are always things that get left out, characters combined, situations changes.... all in the name of condensing a several hundred page work to a time span that people can sit and watch.
|
ConverseSneaker
|
Wicked is an ok musical without comparison to the book, it entertains people and many do like it, but a horrid adaption in my opinion.
As for the Secret Garden the book, Neville actually is in it as cameo and her parents really did die of cholera.
As for my opinon, I think it is an excellent adaption and an excellent musical on it's own.
Bravo, Melindaisy, for your reasoning and points.  I enjoy debates when I'm against an opponent who can hold thier own in a reasonable manner, like you have just demonstrated.
|
Melindaisy
|
Well, thank you, you are very kind!
As I thought about it yesterday, I did recall that it was in the Maggie Smith film that Mary's parents died in an earthquake. I didn't remember Neville from the book, but it has been a long time since I read the novel.
I really love the musical version ... I think it translates the novel to the stage in an effective way.
|
ConverseSneaker
|
Neville was barely and rarely mentioned. But he was still Archie's brother and Colin's doctor. I remember one part in the book when he was puzzled about how much better Colin and Mary look, but they were eating nothing(becaue Mrs. Sowerby, Dickon and Martha's mother, was feeding them).
|
ConverseSneaker
|
[quote="Melindaisy"] | ConverseSneaker wrote: | | Lily (Lilias) is mentioned very little, and her ghost is not in the novel. |
Oh wait! I think she was. Or was that a dream that Archie had?
|
ohLOOKitsLEAH
|
I wouldn't say it's underrated at all!
To be totally honest, I think it's just a terrible play.
It's overproduced and stupid.
The songs are catchy though, I'll give it that!
When I was in it, I just sang those songs pretty much non-stop... they just get stuck in your head so easily!
|
Melindaisy
|
I certainly wouldn't say it is over produced.....
Why do you think it is "stupid"?
|
ConverseSneaker
|
 Oh it's you from the Sweeney Todd forum. She posted a thread about hiw terrible the play was and she hasn't posted back yet.
|
LittleGavroche
|
In the Maggie Smith version it was indeed an earthquake, as you said. I remember being utterly frightened of it as Mary huddled under the bed and broke the elephant.
In the fall, I saw a wonderfully staged production of it at Five Towns College. They had this awesome set with sliding panels and such and three levels. Really amazing, but the reason I think it worked was they clearly established, for example, Mary's room was always downstage left. If I recall correctly, only the "ghostly" parts utilized the whole stage. It wasn't a complex set, and this was not a very rich college, but it worked.
Hence I think the show is perfect for even poorer community theatres. I wish more would do it.
|
Buff Daddy
|
| Melindaisy wrote: | 1) the cast really isn't that large, so high school or groups who are used to large musicals may pass it by
2) the music is not easy, particularly the chorus number (Storms)
3) a director must put a great deal of thought and planning into blocking the show so that it flows easily from scene to scene. |
I would agree with those but also add that "Secret Garden" isn't a well know show to the public, so less likely to get "bums on seats".
Buff 
|
