Changes to BE NYC to remove profanity

[kport]

The scene in 'Solidarity' where Billy shouts 'effing b@st@rds' (I use the clean version here) is utterly realistic

I believe you must be referring to Angry Dance, as Billy doesn't shout anything during Solidarity.

I am referring to the London CD, where Billy (Liam Mower) shouts "Scabs...scabs....fooking b@sta@rds" quite clearly.

[kport]

...replace the Small boy/boom box intro with a two-three minute black and white newsreel film shown that links with the opening number, explaining the historical context...

Kport, I don't know if you knew this (and therefore intended your comments to be rhetorical) or not. The opening you describe, Small Boy climbing onto the stage as a black and white video giving a history of the miners union and the strike plays on screen is the way BETM Broadway begins each performance.

Not on the Tour. Small Boy climbs on stage, sits down, clicks button and boom box plays an audio of Herbert Morrison describing the great socialist experiment of miners and trades unions..that is it. No video at all. Far to obscure for anyone not personally acquainted with the 1984 strikes. I was there...at both. It would make sense to a 50+ UK citizen, but it would mean nothing to Americans. It is worse than useless on a Tour to the American hinterland. NYC might be sophisticated enough - at least it had a black and white video. It is an easily corrected failure of the last Tour. Producers, wake up!!

[ERinVA]

Just a note about the Original Cast Recording: That was done in studio, and not everything that was said incidentally on the recording, such as Liam's line that you quote, is/was actually used in the show.

[BEtourfan]

Not on the Tour. Small Boy climbs on stage, sits down, clicks button and boom box plays an audio of Herbert Morrison describing the great socialist experiment of miners and trades unions..that is it. No video at all. Far to obscure for anyone not personally acquainted with the 1984 strikes. I was there...at both. It would make sense to a 50+ UK citizen, but it would mean nothing to Americans. It is worse than useless on a Tour to the American hinterland. NYC might be sophisticated enough - at least it had a black and white video. It is an easily corrected failure of the last Tour. Producers, wake up!!

I'm not sure the projection at the beginning of the B'way show really adds much to the story's exposition. I think most people seeing the Tour version understand that the miners are going out on strike (George: "we're out--we're on strike"). There have certainly been enough worker strikes in the US for audiences get it and relate to it. I believe a previous commenter got it right--it's a fairly deep and complex story on a lot of levels. Maybe it's just not for the masses in the same way as Lion King or Wicked.

[Todd]

In many walks of life, the 'f' word is one of the (if not the) most commonly used adjectives in daily life. In fact, it has little shock value, it being so overused. Whereas its use in public in the US can get your collar fingered by the local constabulary, or ejected from a church social, in the UK it can be used without any legal or social result (even my Vicar, a former canon of St Paul's Cathedral, merrily uses it when having a pint of Old Thumper down at The George with us). This extends right down to young kids - and I mean even some pre-schoolers, who pick it up from their own family's day-to-day language.

This makes me sad to hear. It points to a definite coarsening of society, which can't be a good thing. If even the church leaders are no different than everyone else, who's left to impart morality to the masses ? And why bother working at a church if you're not going to practice what you preach ? Although I love many things about Britain - and have enjoyed every trip I've made over there - I must say that if Americans are indeed more bothered and sensitive to the use of profane and offensive language, then it's something that I'm proud of, not ashamed of.

As for the need to add more background for American audiences to the story of the miners' strike, I would agree. If they really do intend to change some of the script, then I think some extra dialogue amongst the striking miners in the first scene might be a good way to "prep" the audience as to why they're going on strike, what the consequences are, why they're upset with Maggie Thatcher, etc.

[johnnyc]

Not on the Tour. Small Boy climbs on stage, sits down, clicks button and boom box plays an audio of Herbert Morrison describing the great socialist experiment of miners and trades unions..that is it. No video at all. Far to obscure for anyone not personally acquainted with the 1984 strikes. I was there...at both. It would make sense to a 50+ UK citizen, but it would mean nothing to Americans. It is worse than useless on a Tour to the American hinterland. NYC might be sophisticated enough - at least it had a black and white video. It is an easily corrected failure of the last Tour. Producers, wake up!!

I think it's been mentioned that many of the theatres used on the tour may not have projection equipment like that used in NY and London.

[accessmenj]

but do you guys rewrite Shakespeare in to 'American English' too (and I know Lee Hall isn't Shakespeare but you get my drift)

I sense that my addition to this debate is not appreciated by some

Not only do Americans need to rewrite Shakespeare to "American English", but if we want to fill the theater for a long-term run, we must make the show completely American. Romeo and Juliet could never fill a Broadway theater for a long run, but West Side Story could.

So the choice comes down to
Do we want to be true to a creative masterpiece, or change it for continued profits?

[Yorkie]

This makes me sad to hear. It points to a definite coarsening of society, which can't be a good thing. If even the church leaders are no different than everyone else, who's left to impart morality to the masses ? And why bother working at a church if you're not going to practice what you preach ? Although I love many things about Britain - and have enjoyed every trip I've made over there - I must say that if Americans are indeed more bothered and sensitive to the use of profane and offensive language, then it's something that I'm proud of, not ashamed of.

Well now, there is quite a deep argument to be had on that subject I suspect. To be fair to the said Vicar I don't think there is any question that he was roasting children over open fires or torturing animals. He was socialising in his own time and and enjoying a beer with friends - whether you approve or disapprove of swearing I don't think there is any inference that it affected his religious beliefs or his ability to do his job. I would argue that living a more 'normal' life (at least as I would perceive it) would make me more likely to engage with him and his beliefs. Better than preaching from the pulpit on a Sunday and then cavorting with hookers and using drugs the other 6 days of the week as happens elsewhere. As to whether it is a coarsening of society I think history might show that swearing, or lack of, is not what determines a civil society.

As for the need to add more background for American audiences to the story of the miners' strike, I would agree. If they really do intend to change some of the script, then I think some extra dialogue amongst the striking miners in the first scene might be a good way to "prep" the audience as to why they're going on strike, what the consequences are, why they're upset with Maggie Thatcher, etc.

On to the real issues again - I agree that a better intro would be helpful and I actually think the one used in London doesn't do a very good job either. A new film projection history could improve both shows for audience members. I think the current dialogue is understandable in showing a strike is happening but not the why.

Having said that does the history prior to the day of strike matter to the story? We see the start of the year long strike and the action unfolds in front of us from there. The history of British coal mining doesn't relay play a part.

[kport]

It looks as though I went to bed having opened a few cans of worms! Some observations-

-A vicar at the pub with friends and in mufti, who uses colo(u)ful language that causes no harm, is being human. Those in the UK may have seen a brilliant tv show called 'Rev'. That portrays a normal human being trying to be a reverend. I believe we are not meant to be perfect. In fact, no one is, so it is wrong to expect perfection in anyone, whether they are a public or a private figure.

-even if theaters in the Amercan hinterland do not possess some sort of projection facility, this can be easily solved either by the Tour having its own LCD projector and a screen, or hiring said equipment locally when needed. When a concert pianist in on tour, it is written into the contract with the venue that a newly tuned concert Steinway or Yamaha grand piano will be provided by the venue.

-by noticeably adapting BETM on Tour, the company may please those who may not come anyway (which is pointless) while displeasing those who will come (which is futile). No one will come just because the play excises every use of profanity; those with such sensitivities probably won't be interested in a musical which has as its subject children and gender identity, or ballet, or dance for boys. At Tampa a gentleman made a quiet protest outside each performance because he believed the play promotes themes antithetical to his religious beliefs, which is his right. I did not see anyone turn away; those in agreement with him probably did not come anyway; his presence did not affect the play.

I observed only three cases in which people expressed any concern about the musical: one mother asked Griffin Birney's mom whether she was comfortable with her son being exposed to profanity. The second came when Michael kissed Billy; there was an audible inhalation of breath from the Tampa crowd, which was not repeated in the same event in the final seconds of the play; the third - and most awkward moment - was at the start when Small Boy is doing press ups and shouting 'Jeeeee-sus'. In a venue such as Tampa, had I been the producer I would have changed that for something equally humorous but inoffensive. The crowd loved the same little boy's 'fat bastard' comment, so mild profanity is ok.

To sum up: some tweaks here or there will not go amiss provided the same message is presented. Judging by Forum comments, there seems to be a number of tweaks in existence already. Shakepeare does not work if Americanized; I have taught Shakepeare to Americans who get it, given time (it is more accessible as a play than as a book). BETM can be mildly tweaked without materially changing its brilliance or its message. That is the answer.

[Yorkie]

but do you guys rewrite Shakespeare in to 'American English' too (and I know Lee Hall isn't Shakespeare but you get my drift)

I sense that my addition to this debate is not appreciated by some

Not only do Americans need to rewrite Shakespeare to "American English", but if we want to fill the theater for a long-term run, we must make the show completely American. Romeo and Juliet could never fill a Broadway theater for a long run, but West Side Story could.

So the choice comes down to
Do we want to be true to a creative masterpiece, or change it for continued profits?

I was only joking (British humour) - the average Brit has as much interest in a Shakespeare play as the average American. Believe me, when it comes to arts and theatre there is no moral high ground here

Cant comment on West Side Story, never seen it