BROADWAY: BEYOND THE GOLDEN AGE -- major disappointment

You flatter yourself that your ramblings were worthy of their own thread, OP. Fuck off.

OP, I do think the movie is somewhat disappointing in several respects, but in my opinion, you're overstating that tremendously. There were many stories covered that I either did not know at all or not in detail, for example, all that info about Jane White and MATTRESS, and the incredible stuff about the cast of AIN'T MISBEHAVIN not being able to get cabs after performances because cabbies refused to pick them up due to their race.

As for your comments about the lack of focus on any of the Sondheim/Prince shows, the movie is not set up or intended to be comprehensive in that way. As great as the first one was, think of all the epic productions and performers who were not covered in that one. There's only so much time in one movie.

I have heard that a rough cut of this sequel that were screened when McKay was still alive was considerably longer. I don't know why the film as completed by others is so short, but I suspect it might have to do with issues/expenses regarding rights to clips.

I hope for an extended cut. There was so much great stuff here that I wanted it to go on forever.

The video looked like it had been done in 1987 on free software. Such cheesy visuals.

I loved it -Don't know why OP is going off on it. Did her interview end up on the cutting room floor?

I agree with OP. I found it disappointing as well, and was saddened to realize that so many of the talking head "witnesses" (Kaye Ballard, Julie Harris, Charles Nelson Reilly) are no longer with us to share additional anecdotes and insights.

If I never hear one more word about the making of A CHORUS LINE it will be too soon. I loved the original as a kid. I read the Mandelbaum "making of" book, which wasn't bad. I hated the movie version, the Bway revival, and the EVERY LITTLE STEP documentary that functioned more as an advertisement for the lackluster revival. Enough already.

The ACL segment was the worst but I never saw Liza do all of Hot Honey Rag. That was worth it.

Interesting but out of place segment was where the Aint Misbehavin cast spoke of being unable to get a cab while in the hit show.

Oh wow. I've been waiting for this for years and years and years. I know it screened in Palm Springs maybe ten years ago. Glad to finally be able to see it.

R8, you're thinking of the first installment.

I loved it even though I was somewhat disappointed there wasn't more to it. Oh well.

R9 No! I was a huge fan of the first one, and I've been waiting for the sequel.

I was wrong about one thing. Beyond the Golden Age actually screened at the Palm Springs Film Festival in 2016. And the run time is listed as 2 hours 28 minutes. So it was an hour longer than the PBS version. Which sucks.

It was not very good, and OP is correct, most of those stories have been passed around more than the cast of Newsies. The Jane White one and the Glenn Close ones were the only ones I hadn't heard (and I think I actually had heard a less detailed version of the Close one before).

As far as the Ain't Misbehavin' cast talking about not being able to get a cab, how many times have we heard that story told by a prominent and/or upper class black person? Maybe we haven't heard it from Charlayne Woodard, but we alllllllll have heard it from someone.

Whoever was in charge of this should be ashamed. They really did McKay dirty.

#releasetheMcKaycut

YouTube still has any number of clips that McKay released as being from the forthcoming BEYOND THE GOLDEN AGE. Watch them and tell me how the "finished" film bears any resemblance to what's there, in terms of focus, interest, character, etc.

The very fact that so little in the released version talks about "straight" plays tells its own story. The original was very different in that regard.

I thought seeing Liza and Chita do "Hot Honey Rag" was great. The "Ain't Misbehavin'" stuff about not finding a cab was sad to hear. What I was thinking also though was that my father, who worked at the NY Times, told me that he saw Gwen Verdon taking the subway home after a performance at the TImes Square station with some makeup on. If the star like her, pretty recognizable in the theater, can take the subway home, why did "Ain't Misbehavin' " insist on getting a cab. Or, why didn't they try to get it in their contracts for a car service waiting for them?

The cab stuff really wasn't about the theater per se for relatively extended segment. Maybe they could have been asked why so many in their cast used to miss so many performances that it was mentioned in gossip columns at the time.

I loved it, and agree with others that I wish this was the first part of a 12 episode series.

Did they interview Helen Lawson about "Hit the Sky" and "It's Water, Helen"?

[quote]If I never hear one more word about the making of A CHORUS LINE it will be too soon. I loved the original as a kid. I read the Mandelbaum "making of" book, which wasn't bad. I hated the movie version, the Bway revival, and the EVERY LITTLE STEP documentary that functioned more as an advertisement for the lackluster revival. Enough already.

The ACL section in BROADWAY: BEYOND THE GOLDEN AGE focuses mostly on the epic record-breaking performance at which ACL became the longest running show in Broadway history, with generous clips from it. Everyone should be grateful for that, but some people are obviously ingrates.

[quote]YouTube still has any number of clips that McKay released as being from the forthcoming BEYOND THE GOLDEN AGE. Watch them and tell me how the "finished" film bears any resemblance to what's there, in terms of focus, interest, character, etc.

How can you possibly make any judgment on "focus" from a bunch of separate YouTube clips? You don't seem to know what you're talking about.

[quote]Whoever was in charge of this should be ashamed. They really did McKay dirty.

Oh, please. To feel that the movie is somewhat disappointing in some respects is one thing, but to trash it and the people who completed it like you're doing is just ridiculous.

Yup. 6 years ago it was 148 minutes. Now, it's about 94 minutes. Awful.

It's not even 94 minutes. With all the pledge breaks and the Groff introduction, the actual film was about 70 min.

And fuck off, R19

I went to Ain't Misbehavin many times and the only person who was ever out was Carter. The rest of the time I saw the entire original cast except for when Woodard left and Allen replaced her.

Yeah. McKay's version was 148 minutes, much like the original documentary. This "version" is LESS than half as long. Why would they even bother? Ugh.

Armelia was out the night I saw it. And Nell who was there clearly didn't want to be.

Did they change "Ain't Misbehavin' " at all when it was revived with Nell Carter's name alone above the title on the marquee?

I rather doubt those hams Ken Page and Andre de Shields missed many performances. And they were great, btw!

No, it was the same show.

Only older.

Andre de Shields is still around and still performing.

Yes, he got a Tony for "Hadestown" -- was it at the last ceremony? Almost 2 years ago - damn!

R15 et al

Cannot hail a yellow taxi thing was not limited to African American actors or other performers, but was simply a fact of NYC life then and still pretty much now. Bankers, lawyers, famous and not actors, models, all sorts POC relate to the story because it happens all the time. It also shows that no matter how high someone has risen all certain people see first and foremost is skin color, and that's all they care about. Unless otherwise stated maybe these black actors were just complaining in general that regardless of their talent and appearing on Broadway, they still couldn't get a cab

Gwen Verdon may have been living somewhere in NYC below Harlem and thus it was easy (and maybe fast) way to get home after a performance. Blacks OTOH then and still now (performers, actors, or whatever) often live in outer boroughs and or in Harlem, Washington Heights, etc.... Depending upon where they are coming from and going to a taxi might be faster, easier or maybe safer.

After you, R21.

Rick McKay died very suddenly and unexpectedly in January 2018. It was left to some of his friends and colleagues to try to put this movie into final, presentable form, and to obtain the funding to do so. I have no idea why the running time was reduced so severely from the rough cut, but NEITHER DO YOU. I assume it was probably for very good reason, and the film would have been kept at its original length, or close to it, if at all possible. I'm guess that the brevity of the final film might have had to do with rights clearances for clips, which can be very difficult to negotiate and/or expensive. But again, I don't know, and NEITHER DO YOU.

I'm glad the movie is receiving some very positive reviews by professional critics, as compared to the ill-informed opinions of some of you cretins.

I bet people on DL are better informed than film or TV critics on a documentary about Broadway.

[quote]I bet people on DL are better informed than film or TV critics on a documentary about Broadway.

True, but unfortunately, some of them are really nasty pieces of work with agendas. And the positive reviews I read were by people are very knowledgeable about theater.

It's the new American thing to do: whine that everything isn't exactly the way you wanted it to be, call yourself a victim, and go on the attack.

R34, sadly, I think there's a lot of truth to that.

Bullshit. The first film was wonderful and comprehensive. This is half a documentary, and the fact that it's less than half as long as McKay's cut speaks volumes. My only agenda is to be entertained, and my agenda was not fulfilled.

They never should've released this terrible, truncated version of McKay's vision.

[quote] I never saw Liza do all of Hot Honey Rag.

I was surprised at how good Liza was, given she was a last-minute replacement. When they said Liza picked up the dance steps quicker than anyone, I thought, "Either that's a lot of coke or a dearth of liquor."

I once saw Andrea McArdle roller skating with Dr. Pepper lip gloss on. Why the cast of Ain’t Misbehavin’ should expect a cab under these circumstances makes no logical sense to me.

Yes, how selfish and self-indulgent of these cast members to want a private ride home in a cab (and on their own dime) after doing 8 shows a week.

And what ingrates those of us are for daring to not love, let alone critique, this documentary sequel. How very dare we.

Was it the angle, or did Liza look kinda overweight in those Chicago clips.

I truly hope they release McKay's original vision on DVD or streaming someday. This was NOT what he intended.

That said, I thought the closing section on ACL, talking about their record breaking performance, was excellent. I'd LOVE to see more footage of that night. There's some on YouTube, but really just the finale.

That thing with the original cast slipping in while the current cast slipped out was amazing.

The CHICAGO clips of Liza were shot during her put-in rehearsal. I can tell because she's in costume, but Chita is only in partial costume.

I was fortunate to see Liza twice in the show and she did not disappoint. But I'd already seen the show twice with Gwen and loved her and every minute of it. It was a brilliant production, way ahead of its time and not fully appreciated back then. The opening with Chita rising with the orchestra on that huge turntable drum.....OMG!

We will never see the likes of those stars, Verdon, Rivera, Orbach, and Liza, not to mention those star chorus dancers again. And, of course, I was young and though not rich, I could afford to see shows I loved multiple times spontaneously without breaking my weekly budget. Ah, the 1970s.....

R42 You are lucky.

ARE there less talented people now, in general? Where is today's Gwen Verdon? Where is the young Patti LuPone, or Elaine Stritch? I saw Moulin Rouge on Broadway, and I was underwhelmed by almost every performance.

Yes the 70s was a great time to go to Broadway just in terms of budget. And thankfully I knew it.

This is a rough cut of the ACL footage. What I found interesting was Kelly Bishop felt she was the best female dancer along with Pam Sousa.

A bit more about the record breaking performance with a lot of Jane Summerhays' performance in the International Company

Footage from the performance. This is the only footage I know of with Ann Reinking in the show.

R47 oh neat. Thank you!

I think I saw Ann Reinking in the second cast of Chorus Line. I don't remember exactly now.

Also from what I understand it was not the entire original cast in the gala. Didn't Bennett get a bee in his bonnet over Pam Blair so he kept her from doing it?

Pam Blair, Robert LuPone and Nancy Lane were not there. There may have been others.

If Kelly Bishop was able to wear that nude colored leotard all those years later, I applaud her.

[quote]I truly hope they release McKay's original vision on DVD or streaming someday. This was NOT what he intended.

How are you so sure about what he intended? Did you see the rough cut?

I think you people who are lambasting this movie as it turned out are ingrates because I don't think you appreciate the effort involved in getting it out at all, not to mention the legal negotiations involved. You are allowed to be disappointed in or even hate the final result, but you don't seem to bear in mind the tremendous obstacles that existed in putting it together.

Did they devote time to Bonnie Franklin singing the title song in "Applause" and Linda Lavin singing "You've Got Possibilities" in "It's a Bird, it's a Plane, It's... Superman"?

R52 I know McKay felt to that the 148 minute vision was suitable for viewing at the Palm Springs Film Festival in 2016. I would guess Rick was unable to afford the rights to many of the clips/songs he wanted to feature, so it remained officially unreleased while he was still alive.

Whoever decided to release this half-baked version of Rick McKay's epic vision ought to be ashamed. Rick would be embarrassed by it.

McKay died in 2018, not 2008, so it's not as if he left a bunch of raw footage with no plan and no license agreements in place. He also had a cut that he was intending to release and it had public performances, so don't tell us that all these clips had to be negotiated as if it were from square one. I make documentaries and I know what goes into the process. I also know that there's much material that Rick would not have been able to get his hands on at all if he hadn't already cleared it. I'm not saying everything was paid for and free and clear by any means, but you can't show a film publicly without having some sort of agreement in place (and have already paid a festival license fee, which in most cases is separate from the license fee for your worldwide, all media, in perpetuity license). You could claim fair use, but not if you want to get your hands on material that is controlled by the NYPL. They want $ before they even give you anything to work with, footage wise.

If what PBS showed was what Rick had intended, the film would have come out ages ago. I have no idea what his producers made the decision to do in order to make their money back (or some of it) but my guess is they couldn't sell what Rick intended and did the best they could to cover their losses.

R55 Ok, fine. If they needed to make back some money by releasing a vastly inferior documentary that shames Rick's legacy, good for them. Hope they made out well.

To me, it's clear that when he died, Rick was still trying to work out getting clearance for all of the clips in his vision. The 148 minute version that ran in Palm Springs. With Rick out of the way, the producers decided it was time to cash in.

This 2013 trailer hints at what might've been. But half of the people featured weren't even in the final production! Nor were many of the shows featured in the trailer.

What a disaster.

[quote]If they needed to make back some money by releasing a vastly inferior documentary that shames Rick's legacy, good for them. Hope they made out well. To me, it's clear that when he died, Rick was still trying to work out getting clearance for all of the clips in his vision. The 148 minute version that ran in Palm Springs. With Rick out of the way, the producers decided it was time to cash in.

[quote]This 2013 trailer hints at what might've been. But half of the people featured weren't even in the final production! Nor were many of the shows featured in the trailer. What a disaster.

Again, you people are entitled to your opinions and I might agree to some extent, but you are overstating things to such a ridiculous degree that you're being offensive. Aside from everything else, what makes you so sure that a lot of the footage that was in the rough cut won't be included in yet another sequel? My understanding is that McKay was planning two sequels. Isn't it possible that not all of what he showed in the public screenings of the rough cut was necessarily planned to be included in the first sequel, and that some of it might have been shifted to the second one?

On that note, I have a question for those who actually did see the rough cut: Was the format of it that there were separate sections on great Broadway stories such as Gower Champion's death, the ACL record-breaking performance, and so on, just as the final film is constructed? If so, then all the more reason why I don't think it's any big deal how the stories are combined, since they don't actually relate to each other. And when you think about it, the first movie has a similar structure, with a section about where theater people used to hang out to eat and socialize, another about how they used to audition, another about Laurette Taylor, and so on.

You'll never see a third installment with Rick gone.

"Offensive," R58? Really? You sound like one of those people who gives everything a standing ovation because everyone "worked so hard."

R60, and you sound like a nasty, sour, bitter piece of work.

Yes, I think it is offensive to those who put the movie together to drag it through the mud and make the ridiculous claim that it's a stain on Rick McKay's legacy. Of course I don't know for sure (and neither do you), but I think if Rick could see the result of what other people put together without his guidance or ability for final approval, his reaction would be much closer to great happiness than embarrassment.

That's right, R61, you don't know, yet here you are acting like the authority.

R62, I'm not acting like an authority. I'm expressing my opinion that you people who are describing the film as a bitter disappointment and a blot on Rick McKay's legacy are ridiculous.

HOW VERY DARE YOU.

r61, you keep getting attacked by the same troll who keeps changing his ISP address.

Dear ACL original cast: No, you are NOT the authors of ACL. It was based on your stories. Sometimes closely. But that does not mean you wrote it. James Kirkwood, Nicholas Dante, Ed Kleban, and Marvin Hamlisch wrote it. They are the authors.

R66 They transcribed a lot of those sessions word-for word, like Paul's monologue (though in that case, it was Nicholas Dante himself). One of the original cast told me they made them sign a waiver of rights for like $1 dollar to give up any claim for rights to be a part of the show. I think maybe a couple of them got away without signing, and they luckily may get a tiny percentage. Don't remember which ones though.

R67 That may all be true but that still does not make them the authors. The authors are the people who took that material and wrote a script and score based upon it. The dancers should always be acknowledged for their tremendous contribution to the piece, but to claim authorship as Tony Stevens does, is an insult to the memory of the people who actually wrote it, all of whom are no longer around to defend themselves. Contractual shenanigans are a different discussion.

R63 Huh? I WAS greatly disappointed with the sequel. The first one is vastly superior. And, the trailer for the 148 minute version looks amazing. THAT looks like a follow up to Broadway: The Golden Age. What PBS aired was basically disjointed garbage.

Who are you to tell me I'm wrong to be disappointed? Why are you such an apologist for this abortion of a documentary?

[quote][R61], you keep getting attacked by the same troll who keeps changing his ISP address.

Thanks. Not surprising.

[quote]I WAS greatly disappointed with the sequel. The first one is vastly superior. And, the trailer for the 148 minute version looks amazing. THAT looks like a follow up to Broadway: The Golden Age. What PBS aired was basically disjointed garbage. Who are you to tell me I'm wrong to be disappointed? Why are you such an apologist for this abortion of a documentary?

Your reading comprehension skills are shockingly poor. AGAIN, you are entitled to be greatly disappointed in the film, because that's your opinion. I'm objecting to posters who have the incredible nerve to insist that McKay would have hated how the film turned out as edited by others, when they have NO IDEA what he would have thought, and to those who insanely describe the movie as a blot on his legacy. I hope you understand now, because I'm not going to waste my time explaining this to you again.

I liked it! Announcing the director of 42nd street died at the opening night curtain call was crazy! Cool to see all the footage and all of the talking heads. I didn’t know the grandmother from Gilmore Girls was a theatre legend! Alec Baldwin looked so young.

R70, your insistence that we "have NO IDEA what he would have thought" is ludicrous. At such moments it is YOU who are committing silly overstatement.

We have the first film, which is very different in countless respects.

We have the trailer and other sequences that McKay himself released, which bear little resemblance to the new film.

Reasonable people are allowed to draw inferences from such things. That you disagree is your right (my OP included the line "Your mileage may vary" -- I wasn't presenting my feelings as the only possible ones). That you object to reasonable arguments about what McKay might have preferred is what I find "offensive."

R70 I can tell you it seems to be me and another people who dislike the movie. I'm not changing ISPs or whatever.

Rick McKay worked on Broadway: Beyond the Golden Age for at least 12 years. The version that was screened when he was ALIVE was 148 minutes long. He was alive for two years after it screened in Palm Springs, and didn't release it because the 148 version was his vision, and he wanted to clear all the footage.

Then, he passes away. I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that he would've hated a version that was half as long as his original. After all, in his lifetime he could've easily cut it down like this to release it, but he never did. I'm sure he was proud of how comprehensive the first movie had been. This movie covers a very, very small fraction of what is covered in the 2013 trailer.

well, I enjoyed it very much, but agree it's just a sliver of the original. I wonder what the real story is here. It did occur to me that they might try to release a third part... 148 minutes is very long for a theatrical release and/or PBS!

McKay’s brother Stephen has a tiny penis.

[quote] Your reading comprehension skills are shockingly poor. AGAIN, you are entitled to be greatly disappointed in the film, because that's your opinion. I'm objecting to posters who have the incredible nerve to insist that McKay would have hated how the film turned out as edited by others, when they have NO IDEA what he would have thought, and to those who insanely describe the movie as a blot on his legacy. I hope you understand now, because I'm not going to waste my time explaining this to you again.

You're an idiot. There are at least four separate people who are disagreeing with you on here. No one is changing their ISP to argue with the likes of you.

R76, you and your ilk have an incredible amount of gall in claiming to know how Rick McKay would have felt about the film as edited after his death. Who's to say that, if he had lived, he wouldn't have realized that it would be better for him to release a much shorter version of the film now rather than to keep holding out to release the longer version until he had the time and the money to obtain the rights to all those extra clips, etc.? Shame on all of you for having the nerve to speak for him now that he's deceased.

P.S. Before Rick died, there was lots of complaining from people who helped crowd-fun the project that months and years kept going by with no release of the film in sight. So then Rick dies, some of his colleagues get it together to release a shortened version of the film now rather than five years from now -- and, sure enough, you insensitive assholes complain about THAT. Human nature at its worst.

You're a loon, R77.

Sure, R78, respond to me with a one-word insult because you don't have the brain functions to contribute any cogent argument.

What kind of person was McKay? Anybody know him? He must have been a person with enormous drive, talent, and appreciable charisma. Was he a diva? A nose to the grindstone kind of person? Full of humor? Very serious?

Rick was a longtime friend. In an email the day before he died, he wrote:

"Getting closer to finishing “Broadway: BEYOND the Golden Age” - and if you’re a sucker for punishment, I’ll have you over in a few months for the LONG CUT and you’ll see things no one else will."

He clearly expected the final cut to be shorter.

Thanks, R81. Just as I suspected.

[quote] Thanks, [R81]. Just as I suspected.

No, NOT just as you suspected. He already had a public showing of the 148 minute version. You are bound and determined to have things your way with zero evidence. That is the definition of a loon.

The people in this thread are crazy! I love it! Classic DL.

[quote]McKay’s brother Stephen has a tiny penis.

But what about GARDNER McKay?

[quote]He already had a public showing of the 148 minute version.

I KNOW that Rick McKay already had a screening of a 148 minute version of BROADWAY: BEYOND THE GOLDEN AGE, but that DID NOT necessarily mean he intended to include all of that footage in one finished film. As many people have noted, he always planned to make this a series of three films. Plus, I just double-checked and the running time of the first film was 111 minutes. Why would McKay have planned for the second film to be so much longer than the first? Isn't it likely that he screened all of that footage just to give people an idea of all the wonderful interviews and clips he had to draw from?

[quote]You are bound and determined to have things your way with zero evidence. That is the definition of a loon.

You love that word "loon," don't you? My words for you are unprintable. And what the hell do you mean by "wanting to have things my way?" The finished film is what is, and I'm only spending (or wasting) my energy on schooling people like you as to why it may be shorter than expected, and also to call you out as ridiculous for shrieking that the movie is an abomination.

If the loon fits...

You don't argue with the substance of my comments because you lack the cognitive ability to do so. Instead, you throw around monosyllabic insults. "Schmuck" is also a monosyllabic insult, and I'll earmark that one for you, sweetheart.

You've already been argued with by several people, including myself, and you lost the argument. You're the only one who still thinks there's a debate going on. Hence your nickname.

Actually, when the first documentary came out, lots of DL's hated it as well.

[quote]Actually, when the first documentary came out, lots of DL's hated it as well.

Including pathetic creatures like R89 et al., I am sure.

[quote]You've already been argued with by several people, including myself, and you lost the argument.

How can I "lose the argument" when the argument was my expression of my OPINION that you all are the loons for your off-the-charts overreaction in hating the movie? You are apparently so stupid that you don't understand you can't "win" or "lose" an argument over a difference of opinion on a creative work.

Big Daddy!

Fuck Mary Sunshine can you just fuck off and fuck his rotting corpse..

And so much more.....

How very dare you.

Some of the people in this thread must have been involved in the final cut. Very defensive.

Gardner died two years after that Dunne article was written. Nice that he came from a wealthy family and then after the TV show was able to move to Paris and then Hawaii. That's life as it should be.

[quote]Some of the people in this thread must have been involved in the final cut. Very defensive.

Oh, really? We MUST have? Or maybe we weren't involved, and we just have a low tolerance for arrogance and stupidity.

Yeah, this is so inferior to the original. So inferior to it's trailer. This is absolutely NOT Rick McKay's vision, and whoever allowed it do be released like this did his memory a grave DISservice.

R90 I think the first documentary is brilliant. A time capsule. If anyone wants to know quite what Broadway was like at the turn of the century, that's the movie to watch.

Gardner McKay deserves his own thread. A place where he can really be discussed and apprecitaed.

I wasn't around here when the first film was released. I thought what it lacked in production value (and competent camera work) was more than made up for by the absolute love and passion for theater coming through the screen. I've watched it a few times and I own the DVD. This POS abortion of a sequel wasn't even fit to be DVD extras.

R102 The commentary is great as well.

[quote] Oh, really? We MUST have? Or maybe we weren't involved, and we just have a low tolerance for arrogance and stupidity.

You really are an irritating old queen.

A fight over the running time. It's [italic]Bedknobs and Broomsticks[/italic] all over again!

R102 exactly. Thank you

Maybe they would have only cut half as much as they did had Rick been alive to intervene.

I really wanted to see the Raisin' In The Sun segment.

They should do a Claymation version of the musical [italic]Raisin[/italic] with the California Raisins.

Did Mckay die alone of a heart attack? Wasn't he relatively young?

[R90] I think the first documentary is brilliant. A time capsule. If anyone wants to know quite what Broadway was like at the turn of the century, that's the movie to watch

I too love the first film (and I think the second one is a lot better than some unhinged posters here are making it out to be), but that first film was basically concerned about what Broadway was like from roughly the 1940s through the '60s. It certainly didn't cover the turn of any century. What made you write that?

Did Rick McKay ever approach Sherry O'Neill to get her side of the story?

The problem with the second film is that so many of the stories have been available on youtube for a while. They were not careful about including more rare material.

R112 Dead.

Truth or Urban Legend? On Opening Night of "A Chorus Line" the cast unknowingly signed an agreement giving up all rights to royalties on towels, mugs, tote bags and other items connected with the show.

I was always told that Nicholas Dante got listed as a co-writer on ACL solely because of the Paul monologue, which, as someone says in the film, was used verbatum. I don't think he wrote anything else.

Also, I gave money for the film years ago, and was supposed to get DVDs of both films and a DVD of addl material that wasn't used. Haven't heard a word about any of it in years. The last time I got any news was long before McCay died. Ah well...

What was McKay like? Did he have habits that got in the way of his work?

Habits? You mean like a job? Because he was clearly shooting this on his own time and his own dime. Not that there's anything wrong with that, as it was clearly a labor of love for him, but he wasn't getting rich off these. Or making a living.

Someone upthread mentioned crowdsourcing. Where did that money go?

I'm sure it went to clearing and licensing.

R118 Peter Jackson put money into the first one.

And? How does that affect my comment?

R122 He got money from other sources than just people donating.

Again, how does that affect what I said? He was not making a living from these films while making them and needed to work a job. Whatever money he got was going towards paying for the films, not paying him a salary.

Why are there some really sour people posting in this thread? More than the DL usual.

R124 How, the fuck do you know that? You have no idea about his life or lifestyle.

Because I do this sort of thing and I know what it entails, I know what things cost, I know what one gives up in order to throw a little more money towards something they love, and if anyone was really bankrolling this thing, then it wouldn't have taken all these years to see the light of day. People aren't that patient when they invest in something. I also know what these things cost, as I have had to license them myself. They aren't cheap, they aren't easy and they take a very long time.

He got donations, and if he had a fiscal sponsorship, he got donations that were able to be tax deductible through that sponsor's 501(c)3. He may have gotten grants, but it's unlikely, as most documentary grant organizations don't give money to this kind of film.

That's not to dog his work, that's saying that they prefer to put their money into projects that are shedding light on issues that are currently unfolding, are more on the social justice side, etc. A cheap looking, talking head memory doc would not entice them to give a grant. Again, that's not to dismiss McKay's work. It was clearly a labor of love for him, something he regarded as important (and I agree), and something he labored over for years and years to try to bring to audiences.

[quote]Someone upthread mentioned crowdsourcing. Where did that money go?

Not sure, but I know where I wish you'd go.

The Girls Will Be Girls sequel was shot but it's yet to be completed. Unless you know the details, it's pointless to make sweeping statements.

[Quote] Not sure, but I know where I wish you'd go.

Why are you so bent out of shape?

[quote]Someone upthread mentioned crowdsourcing. Where did that money go?

Not into production values.

The title sequences were so amateurish.

Aren't most of the clips in both films from amature sources? Why would licensing be so expensive?

You actually don't *have* to pay for anything, footage wise, if you can make a fair use argument for it. But that can also limit where you can air it. Many networks/streamers won't touch something that doesn't have all its material cleared for several reasons. The laws have changed a lot to favor doc filmmakers, but there are still major limitations, otherwise it would be a free-for-all.

I myself have never claimed fair use on footage or photos without first attempting to make a deal with the entity who controls them. Sometimes it's impossible to trace the ownership, sometimes you don't even get a response. But as long as you show your due diligence, and have E&O insurance and an opinion from a knowledgeable attorney, you should be fine in terms of making a deal anywhere.

For McKay, there is a lot of material that is housed at the NYPL, and they don't give you anything to even work with, not even watermarked, lo res footage, until you've cleared and paid. And you also have to get every artist represented in those clips (including costume, set, directing, choreography, etc. etc. or their estates) to sign off. Clearing theater footage is no fucking joke.

Is it possible that the doc had so little (nothing?) of the Prince and Sondheim shows because the rights to footage/material was prohibitively expensive? What other reason could there be not to include any of those shows when they were so much a part of the years covered?

What was the name of the other sequel? I remember the name was announced.

The Next Generation, maybe?

It's possible, R134. But because McKay had likely nothing to do with the PBS airing, or its gutting of the film, it's hard to say. The first film never let the absence of footage get in the way of telling a story. Or he would use photos instead of footage.

R134 So, you still have to pay for amature footage?

Amateur. You've misspelled it twice.

So, I can presume the answer is no?

R138, I can't answer that question without knowing more of the circumstance. If I shot footage of something and you wanted it, and I owned it, then I might charge you or I might let you use it. If it was amateur footage of a performance, then you would need to get permission for the work depicted in it. If I had amateur footage of, say, a bunch of actors hanging out backstage, that would be a different story, but you would still need to deal with the person who owned the footage. There are different circumstances for each piece of footage.

And that was not me who criticized your spelling.

*corrected

R126, go to hell, go directly to hell. Do not pass "Go," do not collect $200.

Please. You were criticizing.

Did he just stitch together sequences found on YouTube?

All you have to do is compare McKay's trailer to the abortion that PBS aired. The trailer suggests that SO MUCH MORE will be covered- along the lines of the first movie.

That thing on PBS sucked. It was NOT what McKay wanted, and he'd be appalled to know they released a version that was half as long as his cut.

Why didn't McKay complete it? Was he still shooting interviews or something?

My guess is he was trying to clear footage/songs for a reasonable price.

R146, you are unhinged.

The format of the two movies is somewhat different but basically the same in that McKay focused on stories, personalities, and subjects that were of personal interest to HIM and which he wanted to discuss with theater greats because he himself wasn't there to experience them personally. So the first film has a section on Laurette Taylor, another section on where actors used to eat and socialize in the theater district back in the day, another section on how they used to get auditions, etc. And the sequel has a section on David Merrick's announcement of Gower Champion's death after the curtain calls on opening night of 42nd Street, another section on Jane White's casting in ONCE UPON A MATTRESS, the famous record-breaking performance of A CHORUS LINE, and so on. The construction of each segment in both movies is also similar, as one would expect -- a mixture of talking-head interviews and archival footage.

So if people's ranting about the second film basically comes down to the fact that it's a lot shorter than the first one, perhaps they should try to make their brains work hard enough to understand that this is probably due mostly to the fact that McKay, and those who finished the movie after he died, couldn't obtain and/or afford rights to a considerable amount of the archival footage he had planned to use (as per R148's post).

Fuck "probably." Either come with receipts or pipe down.

Is Sondheim interviewed or any kind of presence in the first documentary? Obviously, West Side Story's story could have been a major part of it but McKay chose not to feature the show IIRC. Or did Chita talk about it? Was Carol Lawrence ever interviewed? There are many original surviving dancers who might have been interviewed. But maybe I'm forgetting....

Anyway, I wonder if McKay simply wasn't a Sondheim fan.

Going from memory, I am fairly certain that Sondheim is interviewed in the first movie. As I and others have mentioned more than once, McKay's plan was to make a series of three movies, so perhaps he intended to have a lot on Sondheim in the third one. And maybe the people who completed the film didn't include any of that in the second film for specific reasons, such as maybe there were problems obtaining rights to clips of the shows at affordable rates.

I think a lot of people have no idea how expensive those clips can be, and how difficult it can sometimes be to obtain the rights at any price. When a friend and I saw the recent Rita Moreno documentary, we were both amazed by how many clips were included, and we assumed that the docu must have had quite a high budget.

More people use clips under "fair use" these days.

They could have had a segment interviewing Barbara Cook and others from "The Music Man" which was actually the big hit the year "West Side Story" came out. Sorry, Chita, it's the better show.

[quote]More people use clips under "fair use" these days.

As someone else explained, there are severe limitations to "fair use" clips.

I SO wish Ken Burns would do a multipart documentary on The Broadway Musical. Imagine the photos and clips he and his team could dig up. And I imagine theatre artists would line up to be interviewed by him (get Sondheim now, Ken!).

Agree R156 and I think it's even odder that there hasn't been a really serious, multi-part American Masters on Sondheim. Makes me wonder if someone already has a ton of footage and is saving it until he passes away. The Bernstein AM and the Jerry Robbins AM both aired after they died. Sondheim is so well-spoken that I want him on the record before he goes! (I know there are a ton of interviews with him.)

Never know when to believe Sondheim though -- he's so happy to have his shows revived that he'll say nice things about performers who are obviously not very good and who he would never have given casting approval if he were a younger man not just happy to get his royalties.

No thanks. I don't want homophobe/dwarf/stealth right-winger Ken Burns anywhere near the glorious world of music theatre.

He seems fully occupied exploiting African-American music, culture, and experience right now in addition to his other Boomer pursuits.

Burns would rather do a documentary on the history of football or the Armenian genocide than the airy fairy world of sequins and Marilyn Miller.

But PBS did do a multipart docuseries about Broadway.

Here's a little story about how fair use has advanced in the past 20 years. In 2003, a three hour documentary called Los Angeles Plays Itself was screened in LA for the first time. It is comprised solely of clips from films shot in Los Angeles and showing how the filmmakers used the city and its architecture, design, etc. When the director screened the film, he didn't have the rights to any clips. The American Cinematheque showed it and made it a free screening so that neither they nor the filmmaker would get in trouble. Once or twice a year, the film would play at the Cinematheque in the same manner, and no other kind of release was ever obtained for it.

Ten years later, the Fair Use rules had changed to the point where the film was finally able to see a commercial release, without licensing any of the clips. The film was put out on blu ray by Cinema Guild, and I believe Netflix showed it for a brief period of time.

And fair use has only gotten stronger in the ensuing years. BUT- film clips are easy to obtain. You buy a blu ray copy and you rip it. Not the same thing as trying to get clips from theater. Another thing to consider is that several broadcasters and streamers have a resolution requirement. Netflix requires 4K delivery. Grabbing a clip off YouTube in 360p is not gonna blow up well on a big screen. Obviously there are exceptions with documentaries, but showing a film that is half comprised of lo res clips ripped from YouTube because you don't want to pay for them is not going to find you an audience too many places.