On the Adaptation of Tarzan:


The Elephant was cute but, like Rosie as Terk, it was one of the things that didn't really work in the film because the style of the comedy worked against the film's general mood and atmosphere and, undermining the narrative to a certain extent. Both characters in the film are somewhat jarring and Terk could have been fleshed out a little more, something which has been taken on board in the stage adaptation


Forget the accent. The choice to make Clayton a Southern redneck is miguided at the outset. What was David Henry Hwang thinking? And why didn't anybody talk him out of it?


I've not seen any concrete information to confirm or deny this. There are some on this board who swear this is so and others who claim the opposite. I don't know who to believe, but I'm leaning toward the latter as nobody who says it's been cut seems to be able to expand on what has replaced this sequence.

Later days
David

I wish I could see this show, but it doesn't look like I'm going to have the chance to... Which is sad. Cause I'm one of those few rare people who thinks it looks and sounds AMAZING. But I NEVER get down to NYC. Never been there, and the way I'm going maybe I never will. I really want to see the cast though...Josh and Chester and Merle are AMAZING.

On the Score of Tarzan:


Even though the lyrics could be improved substantially, Phil Collins's score for Tarzan is a great deal better than Elton John's first attempt at a complete Broadway score. I'm referring to Aida, of course, as the additions to The Lion King were made by a range of different composers and lyricists.


The Lion King and Tarzan both had 5 songs apiece, while Beauty and the Beast had 6 songs plus reprises. The difference is generally in the way they were sung, although "Circle of Life" in The Lion King was sung by a voiceover artist in the way that most of the songs in Tarzan are. In Tarzan, only two songs featured characters from the film singing: "You'll Be in My Heart" and the misfit number, "Trashin' the Camp".


The two title songs? I don't remember one song called "Tarzan" from the film, let alone two that made the move from the screen version to the stage adaptation!


The song is an average addition to the score, bumping its head against its pop origins just when it should soar as Tarzan makes his epiphany. It works, but it could be so much better.


I'm not sure I agree - but then I am not sure which song you mean. But as "No Other Way" is more of a solo piece, I guess you must be referring to "Sure as Sun Turns to Moon". Musically speaking, there is an authenticity and charm about "Sure as Sun Turns to Moon" that is lacking in other sections of the score. The song is deceptively simple, but the music "gets" precisesly what the song is trying to portray dramatically, although the lyrics certainly don't ahieve nearly as much. But as far as the music is concerned, "Sure as Sun Turns to Moon" offers a pretty keen observation of the relationship between Kala and Kerchak and the arrangement really reflects the way they tiptoe around each other. Furthermore, the African flavour doesn't feel as forced as it does in some of the other sections of the score and the song also rhythmically foreshadows the way that the Tarzan-Jane relationship starts to develop in "Different". Speaking more generally, the style of the song fits the show better than, say, "I Need to Know" which is more a traditionally arranged song that feels like it could fit into half a dozen other scores without changing a note. I don't mean that it's a completely horrible number - I think it's a disarming little song. It just isn't as stylistically cohesive with the rest of the score as it could/should be.

Later days
David

On Disney Theatricals and the Failure of Tarzan:



Beauty and the Beast is so-so, a great film adapted with too sloppy a hand. For the most part, the new material just doesn't live up to that which was ported over from the film and there are lyrics that sorely miss the touch of Howard Ashman. However, the staging of the original production proved that a good production can makes it seem more than it is and certainly excellent performers can elevate the material beyond its limitations.

The Lion King, in terms of its book in particular, is even more flawed. Much of the added and reworked material lends a dynamic to the score that was only hinted at in the film and the weakest parts of the score are the new contributions by Elton John and Tim Rice. But here, Julie Taymor's conceptulasation and staging elevate the material far beyond what exists on the page. It is an astounding theatrical accomplishment for all its dramatic shortcomings.

So to get back to Dramaluvergurl92's statement: Disney Theatricals has produced average musicals that generally come across better than they are because of the way they are staged. This is the expectation I had of Tarzan. After the fact, it turns out Tarzan is really no worse than The Lion King on the page; it's actually even a bit better. But on the stage, it was a disaster. Disney made a poor choice in allowing designer Bob Crowley direct the show. The man has created some lovely set designs, but this was not one of them - and there was no outside eye to guide his vision, which I think was a huge problem for the show, just as he, because of his inexperience, could not offer guidance to Phil Collins and David Henry Hwang and push them to accomplish better work.



I think this was a huge part of Tarzan's failure to fly with Broadway audiences. The show played in the wrong theatre, with a poorly designed set, misguidedly constructed to show the "nuts and bolts" of its workings, in a traditional theatre space when it seems that the most interesting way to stage it is in an arena set-up with an environmental staging. The Dutch production moved towards this kind of set-up and it worked phenomenally well. Now if we could get a revisionist mainstem staging of the show in this style, with the writers on board to patch up some of the details, the show could be a theatrical success even if it will probably never be a refined and profound show dramatically.


Is it really the selection of the film that is the flaw here? There may be more obvious choices in the Disney canon, but it's not as if Tarzan is fundamentally unstageable. I think what's being forgotten here is that while Disney brings the money, it's a corporate body and not the person responsible for the adaptation or the staging. If selection is the fault, surely the choice that Disney should be making more carefully has to do with the key people who are bringing the adaptation to the stage. Choosing Bob Crowley, as mentioned above, was really the undoing of this property as a piece of theatre and it could be argued that choosing Francesca Zambello caused an equal number of problems insofar as her ideas for staging The Little Mermaid are concerned. On the other hand, take a look at how Julie Taymor transforms something that is not particularly meaty into a feast for the senses. Considering the quality for which Disney Theatricals is prepared to settle when it comes to the respective books and scores for their shows, it is in these choices - those that take the show from the page to the stage - that Disney needs to make more carefeully considered decisions.

Later days
David