"Every time producers would say, 'Well, pitch something,' 'Bells Are Ringing' was first on my list," she says. As soon as Prince won a Tony for playing the influenza-impaired Miss Adelaide, people started asking her what she wanted to do next. And a bond was formed with the show.įlash forward to her success in the long-running revival of "Guys and Dolls" in 1992. Prince used "Is It a Crime?" - a song in the show that helps define Ella's trusting, infinitely appealing character - to help her pass the twice-yearly boards at Cincinnati. "Bells Are Ringing" chronicles the adventures of the ever-helpful Ella, who gets more than a little involved in the lives of her customers (especially a struggling playwright) at a telephone-answering service. "Something about that show really spoke to me." "Somebody turned me on to the album of 'Bells Are Ringing,' and I thought, 'Oh, they wrote it for me,'" the performer says with a giggle, speaking of composer Jule Styne and lyricists Betty Comden and Adolph Green. I was lost," she said during an interview in her dressing room at the Plymouth Theatre, where a revival of "Bells" opened April 12. "When I got to Cincinnati, I was the really green one in all my classes. Until then, Prince had done only two - local productions of "Oklahoma!" and "South Pacific." Fresh from small-town Virginia, she didn't know much about musicals. It is a connection that was born in Prince's college days at the Conservatory of Music at the University of Cincinnati, where she was a bright light and a big voice in the school's musical theater program. Prince knew she had a special kinship to the 1956 musical and to Holliday, who died of cancer nine years later at the age of 42. No matter that the role was originally owned on stage and in the movies by Judy Holliday. For 10 years, Faith Prince has wanted to play Ella Peterson, the goodhearted telephone operator in "Bells Are Ringing." In his oath, he pledged only to “govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, your other Realms and the Territories.NEW YORK - Persistence sometimes pays off, even in the theater. When Elizabeth became queen, Britain was still very much an empire-and, as such, she pledged to “govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories.” Charles, meanwhile, now rules over a considerably smaller realm. One of the starkest differences between Charles’ and Elizabeth’s coronations was their oaths. In Charles’s coronation oath, he said: “Grant that I may be a blessing to all thy children, of every faith and belief, that together we may discover the ways of gentleness and be led into the paths of peace through Jesus Christ our Lord. In Charles’s coronation, there was a greater effort to make the service more inclusive and reflective of Britain’s diversity, most notably through the inclusion of a diverse array of faith leaders. Whereas the Queen was crowned alone in 1953 (her husband, the late Duke of Edinburgh, was not, as is custom for the consorts of female sovereigns), Charles was crowned alongside his wife, the now Queen Camilla. Compared to Elizabeth’s, Charles’ coronation was a more scaled-back affair, with fewer people in attendance and a shorter service and procession than his mother’s. But there were also a number of key differences.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |