Today's daily Rice news feed update has a link to an article about a new play in Houston called "Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson."

http://houston.broadwayworld.com/article...N-20120704

This post is not about the play itself, but about the article on the people behind it. The article quotes key people in the production team describing how they researched the background of the play. These quotes are very discouraging:

The director: "I went to my "go to" text for American History, A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn..."
Well, given the play that he apparently wanted to make, this book is certainly convenient source material. I mean, if you already know (or think you know, or don't want to not know) that an accused person is guilty, the prosecutor's charging document is all you need to read. But solid political history it is not.

One of the actors: "I was lucky to have just studied AP US History this last year, so I was able to just crack open my Princeton Review and look over the Jacksonion Era and Populism and Progressive Movements..."
I am not sure which part of this sentence is more discouraging: the fact that he considered a Princeton Review manual to be a historical reference book, or the fact that he had to rely on one in his AP History course.

The choreographer: "I read the entire Wikipedia page on Andrew Jackson..."
Well.

The other quotes are less depressing only because they are less specific.

Perhaps most discouraging: as far as I can tell, the reviewer presents these quotes without a touch of irony, as apparent examples of, in his mind, historical research. A depressingly unperceptive article about depressingly un-lettered people.

Obviously no one expects a theater person to be a professional historian. But with all the legitimate, even-handed, well-researched and readily accessible biographies and histories available, it would have been trivial to do better than these clowns.

Of course, the escape clause for historically-based fiction is always "Hey, we never said it was genuine history." Well, then don't give breathlessly self-serving comments to a reviewer (especially such a credulous lapdog of a reviewer) about how you "educated" yourself on the background history.

(07-05-2012 12:16 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  The choreographer: "I read the entire Wikipedia page on Andrew Jackson..."

To be fair, I'm not sure how deeply the choreographer needs to understand Old Hickory, even when he is the subject of the play being choreographed.

(07-05-2012 12:52 PM)texd Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 12:16 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  The choreographer: "I read the entire Wikipedia page on Andrew Jackson..."

To be fair, I'm not sure how deeply the choreographer needs to understand Old Hickory, even when he is the subject of the play being choreographed.

You're entirely right, and in fact none of them really need to understand the historical subject to stage a successful play. It may have been the reviewer's ingenuousness about the whole thing ("Gosh, look at all the homework these folks did...") that set me off the most.

My son was cast in this piece, but had to drop for another commitment.... But you have to know that the piece is an "art" piece, and not intended to be historically accurate if a reconfiguration would result in a funnier or more ironic or more eclectic scene. It focuses on the founding fathers, but is almost entirely "set" in today's culture, so plenty of artistic license is allowed. I'm pretty certain they wouldn't have referred to James Monroe as a d-bag in the 18th century, but there it is today, lol.

I agree that today's definition of knowledge is lacking, but art is often not a place to look for historical accuracy. I agree that the writers depiction was the root of the problem, and understand your complaint. The fact that he thinks this is historically accurate, or even really intended to be is puzzling. They certainly do study their characters, but notin the way a historian would. Perhaps that is the difference??

Hambone - if you or anyone in town is near the Miller Outdoor Theatre on Aug. 16 and 17, my girls will be in a free production of Annie those nights. The more in the audience, the merrier. They're just orphan ensemble - not speaking roles. I guess I better read up on the Great Depression and rich industrialists of the early 20th century on wikipedia before the show.

Lol at fbo

Thank ou for the invite. I hope to be able to make it.

Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Krusty is playing FDR in Sunrise at Campobello:

Krusty: Eleanor, we've got to do something about this depression.
[starts walking toward her] So I propose -- oh, that's right!
I'm crippled, heh.

(07-05-2012 02:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  My son was cast in this piece, but had to drop for another commitment.... But you have to know that the piece is an "art" piece, and not intended to be historically accurate if a reconfiguration would result in a funnier or more ironic or more eclectic scene. It focuses on the founding fathers, but is almost entirely "set" in today's culture, so plenty of artistic license is allowed. I'm pretty certain they wouldn't have referred to James Monroe as a d-bag in the 18th century, but there it is today, lol.
[deletia]

I think I've shared this video before in a different conversation, but suffice it to say, I think you may be surprised at the level of discourse that occurred during "ancient" political campaigns. D-bag is mild by comparison.

(07-06-2012 01:45 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 02:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  My son was cast in this piece, but had to drop for another commitment.... But you have to know that the piece is an "art" piece, and not intended to be historically accurate if a reconfiguration would result in a funnier or more ironic or more eclectic scene. It focuses on the founding fathers, but is almost entirely "set" in today's culture, so plenty of artistic license is allowed. I'm pretty certain they wouldn't have referred to James Monroe as a d-bag in the 18th century, but there it is today, lol.
[deletia]

I think I've shared this video before in a different conversation, but suffice it to say, I think you may be surprised at the level of discourse that occurred during "ancient" political campaigns. D-bag is mild by comparison.

I love how Adams in the video calls Hamilton a "Creole bastard Scotch peddlar" -- insulting his lineage in three different ways!

But I wish the producers had got the "s that looks like an f" thing correct. That typographical convention was used only for the first s of a double-s, not just for any old s in a word. I guess it's kinda like the German "sz" character. (The practice of capitalizing nouns also seems to be Germanic.)

(07-06-2012 01:45 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 02:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  My son was cast in this piece, but had to drop for another commitment.... But you have to know that the piece is an "art" piece, and not intended to be historically accurate if a reconfiguration would result in a funnier or more ironic or more eclectic scene. It focuses on the founding fathers, but is almost entirely "set" in today's culture, so plenty of artistic license is allowed. I'm pretty certain they wouldn't have referred to James Monroe as a d-bag in the 18th century, but there it is today, lol.
[deletia]

I think I've shared this video before in a different conversation, but suffice it to say, I think you may be surprised at the level of discourse that occurred during "ancient" political campaigns. D-bag is mild by comparison.

That video is terrific. I noticed at the end the line from Stephen Douglas calling Lincoln "hatchet-faced." Even Lincoln knew he was ugly. Once when he was accused of being two-faced in a debate, he replied, "If I had another face, do you think I'd wear this one?"

I used to own "Samuel Johnson's Insults", a compilation of all the slights, slurs, and slings in his famous 18th century dictionary. I don't know where it got off to.

(07-06-2012 03:54 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  That typographical convention was used only for the first s of a double-s, not just for any old s in a word. I guess it's kinda like the German "sz" character. (The practice of capitalizing nouns also seems to be Germanic.)

That's incorrect. The "ſ" was used for single "s" as well, as long as it wasn't at the end of the word. The "s" we recognize today was used at the end of words (and I think also as the second s in a pair, like you were referring to -- German ß, which in certain type faces looks exactly like the merger of ſs).