Talk:Guys and Dolls

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Time Periods[edit]

What is the time period for the stage play? I assumed it was in the 1950's based on one of the songs mentioning "late '48" but I wasn't sure. Does it change with subsequent productions?

i think it is good ...
That's an interesting point, and one I argued with the producer about (gently) when I was in an amateur production of the show.
I don't think there's too much point trying to pin this down, as in fact I think there are numerous small anachronisms and inconsistencies.
  • I think the Runyon stories it is based on refer to the forties.
  • The references to Big Julie being "from Cicero," which is obviously supposed to signify something familiar to the audience, are presumably a reference to Al Capone's gang; Capone died in 1947.
  • In "Take Back Your Mink," the lyrics say "He bought me the fur coat five winters ago, and the gown the following fall/Then the necklace, the bag, the hat and the shoes/That was late forty-eight, I recall." It's not clear how far in the past "late forty-eight" is, but it certainly puts us in the late forties or early fifties. "That was late thirty-eight" would have given just as good an internal rhyme if Loesser had wanted to put it in the forties. The show premiered in 1950 so I think the intention of "late forty-eight I recall" was to set the song in "the present."
  • A key question to which I don't have a very good answer is this. A key plot element is the ready availability of plane flights from New York to Havana. When Sky gets Sarah to agree to have dinner with him at the Cafe Cubana, he says, "It only takes X hours on the plane. And the food is great!" I've never managed to turn up the actual Runyon story, so I don't know if this plays out the same way in Runyon's story. I believe the idea of being able to fly to Havana just to have dinner would not have been thinkable even as an extravagance in the 1940s, so this again for me points to "the present, 1950."
  • "Adelaide's Lament" implies that she is reading some kind of pop-psychology book, and that the notion of "psychosomatic symptoms" is current and trendy. I think that, too, was postwar, with the explosion of interest in Freudian psychology following the emigration of Viennese Jews, including psychiatrists, to New York.
So, my vote is that it is set in "the present," i.e. 1950. I don't remember if the script has anything to say about this. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right about the play, but Damon Runyon's world is the world of Prohibition and Repeal - that is, the '20s and 30's. Many people of the time populate his stories in disguise.

Speakeasy hostess 'Texas' Guinian (known for greeting patrons with the phrase 'hello sucker!') appears as 'Missouri Martin' (and almost says 'hello sucker' too, see 'The Bloodhounds of Broadway').

Crap shooter 'Big Nig' is meat to be gambler 'Nigger Nate', who was part of a cheating team that cleaned out Arnold Rothstein (of the 'Black Sox' baseball scandal) in a high-stakes poker game, Oct 1928. His murder a month later is sometimes ascribed to his refusing to pay markers from this game, on the grounds that the game was fixed. Magician and card expert John Scarne discusses the incident in detail in his 1966 autobiography 'The Odds Against Me'. (Sorry about the racial moniker, these guys was not refined, whaddaya want?)

Rothstein himself was nicknamed 'the Brain' and a character resembling him is the central character in the story. 'The Brain Goes Home'. Rothstein is also thought to be part of the inspiration for Nathan Detroit.

Runyon's character newspaper writer Waldo Winchester looks very like a thinly disguised version of real-life broadway columnist Walter Winchell.

There are others, but the point is, they are all c. 1920-1940. Also, the slang used is of the vintage of about 1920. I always thought setting the musical in the 1950's was a little jarring - Runyon was shaped by the turn of the century and the early modern age, and by the 1950's a lot of his world was gone. I hope the new Broadway musical will put the guys and dolls in the Jazz Age, where they belong. 65.89.68.24 (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prone to violence?[edit]

How is Sky Masterson prone to violence?

Is someone confusing him with Big Julie, who is implied to be violent from a) the fearful and submissive reactions of other players to his outrageous suggestions, and b) his home town, Cicero, which is commonly identified with Al Capone? Dpbsmith (talk) 10:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Loudonville Elementary 1993 production?[edit]

Is this an elementary school production?

What standard of notability to we want to apply here? Do we want to count community theatre productions as revivals?

Should this material be in the article? I'm thinking not. At the very least, we need to have verifiability in the form of a reliable source citation. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I love the way it "ran for nearly three nights". What happened on that third night? ;-)—Phil | Talk 14:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They had a cast party with milk and Oreos in the cafetorium? Dpbsmith (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dudes, this was a pretty notable production. Re: "nearly three nights"--well, yeah, because Sunday was a matinee (followed by an impromptu trip to see Jurassic Park). And, no, there were no Oreos in the cafetorium. There was popcorn and that awesome McDonald's orange drink that you used to see on soccer fields. Remember that? I dunno, maybe there were oreos, too. Too bad I can't look it up on wikipedia, thanks to you stuffed shirts. 66.17.174.98 (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Hary the Horse.[reply]

Missing information on Revivals[edit]

Apropos of the various "revivals", we are missing some vital bits of information:

  • Where were the 1976 and 1992 ones staged?
  • Who produced any of them?
  • Should we have a more complete cast list for each one?

—Phil | Talk 14:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Happy Ending"[edit]

The item

  • Happy Ending

was recently added to the list of musical numbers. AFAIK there is no song by that name, at least not in the original production. Where does this come from? Was it recently added? Is it in the movie? Is this just a title of convenience given to a snippet of closing dialog and the final reprise of Guys and Dolls on recordings? Or what? Dpbsmith (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Happy Ending is a one-page reprise of Guys and Dolls. It's in the Musical Theatre International version of the script..Miguel Cervantes 18:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long before Guys and Dolls, Berthold Brecht and Kurt Weill wrote the musical Happy End, undoubtedly also taken from Runyon's stories, but with a much darker feel to it. It was first performed in 1929 in Berlin. [1]

Arena Stage in Washington DC mounted a production in 1984, which was taped by and broadcast on PBS as part of its American Musical Theater series. [2] [3]

(talk) 21:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)LaurieRose28[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_End_(musical)
  2. ^ http://www.arenastage.org/about/history/1980s/1983-1984/
  3. ^ http://www.ovrtur.com/recording/178949998

Excessively coy description?[edit]

Surprisingly, Sky manages to get Sarah to agree to the date, putting Nathan in even worse condition. Over the course of their date, Sky manages to break down Sarah's social barriers, and they begin to fall for each other.

Social barriers? Begin to fall for each other? Maybe I just have a dirty mind, but "If I Were A Bell" seems to me at least as explicit than, say, the Hollywood convention of the time: couple kisses, then cut to exploding skyrockets.

And I don't think it was really "cider" in Nathan's ear, either. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, this is a very interesting point. Re: Sky and Sarah's Cuban date: Well, I didn't see the original Broadway production, but I have seen a regional production. Although Sarah gets very drunk, and the lyrics of "If I Were A Bell" certainly imply "something", I seem to think that Sky is a "gentleman" and does not take advantage of the situation--or Sarah.JeanColumbia 14:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the movie, there's no way they went beyond kissing. Indeed, just before "If I Were a Bell", they have a conversation where Sarah seems to be suggesting it, and Sky (by now, falling in love with her) says no, you don't know what you're getting into. — Lawrence King (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When Sky tells Nathan, et al, that all women are the same (cosi fan tutte?), and Sarah is selected as the target, Sky collapses with the famous "Cider in my ear" response. I've always assumed he's supposed to sexually seduce her -- not just fly her to Havana for a meal. This is pretty clear when, after getting Sarah drunk, and her singing "If I Were a Bell", he refrains from taking advantage of her. As suggested above, this is a point that needs discussion. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, the bet is only to take an undisclosed woman to Havana. Since Sky is a master talker and thinks any woman would adore him, he sees this as an easy bet. The problem of course comes when Nathan then chooses a pious religious zealot. Softlavender (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some changes that i made[edit]

Hey I made some changes on the page so that it would be more organized. The lists of casts and beneath each show seemed rather pointless, and it has been bothering me for a little bit of time now. On the How to Succeedd in Buisness Without Really Trying page i noticed they had it a small table on the page comparing who has played which parts in which productions. I adapted a similar version of that table for Guys and Dolls. I also moved the picture to the top of the page. Props for whoever loaded that picture.--Kiwiboy1221 00:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwiboy1221--I think that chart helps immensely when there are so many productions. I think this article is ready to be rated--it surely is more than a stub now. Does anyone know how to ask for an assessment?JeanColumbia 14:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that the template is for a FILM stub, rather than a THEATER stub. I'll try to find out how to get this assessed, anyway.JeanColumbia 14:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway leads[edit]

Shouldn't the lead players in the original Broadway performance be named? — Lawrence King (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added them to the top. I know they appear in the table at the bottom, but it seems odd for the first mention of Vivian Blaine to be as a star of the movie. — Lawrence King (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

high-roller/ high roller hyphenated?[edit]

High-roller (or high roller) appears four times in various forms in the current article, hyphenated twice of the four. Is it truly hyphenated? and why is a link to "high roller" only supplied in the last appearance on the page? I believe it is not supposed to be hyphenated, because the article high roller is not hyphenated. Yelling Bird 02:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Separating the Acts[edit]

In the synopsis and song list, would someone kindly indicate where Act II begins? I suggest adding this at the top of each act:

Act I
Act II

--Ssilvers 20:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each of those is still pretty long & detailed: respectively, 11 and 7 paragraphs... of course! I've taken it a step further by making them level-3 subsections. This will make it easier to refer/link to particular elements in the section. --Thnidu (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Versions?[edit]

I recall playing sax for my high school's production of Guys and Dolls. My favorite instrumental was "Havana Escapade", which is hard to find. The audio recording I own (a CD) didn't have the same Havana Escapade that I played. I see from the comments here that there are multiple versions of the musical. So, maybe a discussion of what's different among versions would be good. Bugmuncher (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IBDb link and template[edit]

The first [Guys_and_Dolls#External_links|external link], to the IBDb entry for the show, was implemented with an ibdb template and went to http://www.ibdb.com/production.asp?id=4133 , which is about a specific production of "A Talent for Murder".

I've substituted the correct link, which is http://www.ibdb.com/Show.asp?id=4133 (with "Show" instead of "production"). Since I don't know how that template is supposed to work and won't put time into it now, I just used a straightforward external link. Thnidu (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Menton in seinfeld?[edit]

Does this really need its own section? I'm sure there have been a lot of other cultural references... Josh 01:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. AJD (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal Ranges[edit]

I think that the vocal ranges section might use a bit of tightening. There are a few places that I see cause for rectification.

Arvide is listed as 'bass/baritone.' While his solo 'More I Cannot Wish You' is an ideal bass song, it should be noted that in 'Follow the Fold,' he sings the tenor line, and has several Es and Fs. Though this is not quite so noticeable from simply listening. I would say that Sky Materson is more of a bass than Arvide, simply by the fact that Sky Masterson doesn't sing as high as Arvide, and indeed goes lower at points than Arvide does in the whole show.

Also, I find it somewhat odd that Nathan Detroit is listed as a 'baritone/tenor' while Benny Southstreet is listed as a 'baritone.' They both have a similar range, but Benny goes higher than Nathan. Nathan only goes up to an F, whereas Benny goes up to a G in several places in the title song with Nicely. I would think that Benny and Rusty Charlie could be competently played by baritones and tenors alike. They never really sing low at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.162.205 (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Runyonland[edit]

"The show opens with Damon Runyon writing the beginning to his story, "Broadway Stories". The story is then acted out by the company, through dance ("Runyonland")"

I haven't seen the orignal production, but in all the versions i've seen Runyonland has simply acted as the overture, with no Damon Runyon to be seen. Is this done in other productions? If not it should be mentioned.--210.50.254.172 (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. My high school just put on Guys & Dolls and we included Runyonland as the overture; I think this is the same for all high schools. Rsteilberg 04:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsteilberg (talk • contribs)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. — ξxplicit 07:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys and Dolls (musical) → Guys and Dolls — The article was controversially moved to the current location recently without discussion or consensus. The musical is the primary topic and the dab page, Guys and Dolls (disambiguation) has existed for over a year and a half. Aspects (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Including the movie version in the list of major productions[edit]

There's only been one film version of this musical made. True, it has its own article and is briefly referenced in the article, but I think it should be mentioned in the table of major productions because 1) it is the only other major production (other than the original London production) to include any major members from the original Broadway production, 2) it likely cost as much or more than the other major productions (given the difference in salaries), 3) it's not as though we're mixing in a group of plays and movies -- there has only been one movie made. Banaticus (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the City Center productions being listed in the chart of Major Productions[edit]

The two City Center productions ran for less than 17 performances each. Are these then "Major Productions"? I think not. They aren't even listed in the infobox. Also, they are for some reason being described as "Broadway Revivals" in the chart, even though they weren't called that in the article text. CC isn't even a Broadway theatre (at least not any more). I'm wondering if these two minimal productions should be deleted from the chart. They are already described in the aricle if anybody wants info on them. Softlavender (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and deleted them, since neither of the productions ran more than 31 performances, and thus in my opinion cannot be considered "major" compared to the other NYC and London productions. If anyone disagrees, let me know and perhaps we can consider re-instating the info into the chart, but I did make sure that all four principals were listed in the article text describing each production. Also, that chart was getting too big and overcrowded in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed something I couldn't find a citation for[edit]

In the following sentence about the 2009 Broadway revival, I deleted the part in bold: "The show opened to generally negative reviews, and was rumored to close right away according to Playbill." That's because I can't find a reference for it. Granted, Playbill.com's search engine is rather clunky, and I may have missed it, but on the other hand, I don't know that Playbill could have gotten away with rumoring something like that without being sued. So I'm deleting it, at least until someone can validate it with a citation. Anyway, I replaced that phrase with a reference which summarizes all the bad reviews the production got, so that should suffice as a good replacement. Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of the movie "soundtrack"[edit]

From the quick research I've done, it seems that the two references linked for the movie soundtrack are not official releases-- both appear to dubbed from a home recording of the movie. I'd suggest that due to this, the reference to the movie soundtrack should be deleted (since there does not appear to be an official version). Scify (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a problem with the word "libretto" used in the Background section[edit]

Thank you to MarianWilde for expanding that section. I myself am having trouble with the use of the word "libretto" in that section. Can we please change it to something less ambiguous? Depending on who you talk to and when, in musical theatre libretto can mean lyrics, book, or both. And of course in opera, it means only lyrics. It's usually mostly associated with the lyricist, which of course in this instance would be Frank Loesser. Since the item actually being talked about is the book, can we please replace the word "libretto" some more appropriate word that cannot be misconstrued, e.g., "book", "script", etc.? Almost every source on this play calls it the "book". The script itself reads: "A musical fable of Boardway / Based on a story and characters of Damon Runyon / Music and Lyrics by Frank Loesser / Book by Jo Swerling & Abe Burrows". "Book" is also the term used in Wikipedia musical theatre infoboxes. "Libretto" is how this article already refers to the lyrics, in the Reception section: "The libretto and score was greatly praised as well ...". I've gone ahead and replaced the usage in the Background section to match Wikipedia style. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 06:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine using "book" or "script" (though I like "book" is better). I have no particular attachment to the word "libretto"; I simply was not thinking of its implications. Thanks for catching that. I will be more careful about my use of "libretto" in the future! MarianWilde (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks for all your great additions to the article! Softlavender (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Biltmore Garage" ≠ Garage of the Biltmore Hotel[edit]

The Biltmore hotel is never mentioned, and the owner, or at least the person who wants $1,000 for the use of the garage, is named Joey Biltmore. The Damon Runyon story mentioning Nathan Detroit's floating crap game, Blood Pressurel, says:

The New York Biltmore Hotel was located at 335 Madison Avenue which is between 42nd and 43rd Street, near Grand Central.

It's possible that there is sly misdirection going on and that perhaps lyricist Frank Loesser meant for us to think of the Biltmore Hotel, but the librettist created "Joey Biltmore" so that they could have plausible denial if the Biltmore Hotel objected, but I would want to see a citation before saying so. But I think identifying "Biltmore garage" as "Garage of the BIltmore Hotel" is just plain jumping to a conclusion, and I don't think it should be stated unless someone can cite evidence to back it up.

The Biltmore Hotel is about a mile from Lindy's at 1626 Broadway, which I'll take as a marker for Damon Runyon's "Broadway." I'm not sure whether the Biltmore is a credible location for a floating crap game; it seems to have been an upscale hotel in an upscale area. But then, PS84 is on West 92nd Street, almost 3 miles from Lindy's, so who knows what Frank Loesser had in mind, other than rhyme and meter?

Dpbsmith (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Equity US Tour[edit]

There is currently under way a 6-month Non-Equity tour: the leading players are not notable, and the director is not notable. Certainly a real US national tour would be important to be added to the article, but I would not say that it is essential to add this production. If you do add it, this is the this is the full itinerary of the tour posted by IATSE, which began in December 2014 and goes until May 2015: Here are some refs: this and this. Here is the tour's official website. You should not not name the designers, unless they are blue-linked people. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I personally agree/think not notable, or insufficiently notable. Thanks for looking that up. Softlavender (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None[edit]

Please see correct usage for "none of them" [1]. It takes "were", not "was". Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Guys and Dolls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Guys and Dolls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unattributed reviews[edit]

Review quotations about the all-black productions are currently unattributed in this wiki article's text. SanjitChudha, you need to state in the wiki article's text who and/or what publications, stated each quote. You can follow the way that other reviews are quoted/attributed in various other musical theatre articles (including this one), or seek guidance and help at WT:WikiProject Musical Theatre. -- Softlavender (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guys_and_Dolls&oldid=1202464664"