Shows that don't age well- Page 3

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 8/20/11 at 9:53pm

"Gone are the days when it is odd to not be married by your mid thirties."

I respectfully disagree. While as a collective culture, I think there is more single acceptance, if you are ever surrounded by partnered family and friends, Bobby's struggle is as fresh and current today as in the 70s. Partnered people react the same today as they do towards Bobby in "Company." Single people are privy to all the joys and tragedies of their partnered friends.

I really feel "A Chorus Line" is dated and like a previous poster said, I can't really put my finger on it. I also partially know this to be true as I have many young teenage relatives who loves musicals and their recent exposure to ACL did nothing for them. They weren't electrified like when I was a teen and saw it. I also think some of the sub-par acting and poor dancing didn't help the tour. If you are doing a musical about dancers the dancing has got to be tight and the heart of the acting has to be primal. Much of that was missing from the revival.

[navnisinger]

Posted: 8/20/11 at 10:10pm

Annie has not held up so well. Orphanages are much more rare in the United States now. Also, its use of the politics of the era no longer seem relevant.

[Kad]

Posted: 8/20/11 at 10:15pm

...Annie is in no way dated because it uses an orphanage. And what politics of the era? What era? The 30s, when it's set, or 70s, when it was written?

I would hardly call Annie a dated piece by any means. Does it carry a certain stigma because it's so widely produced? Yeah. But dated? No.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/20/11 at 10:15pm

Bettyboy72, is it possible A Chorus Line feels dated because we are less convinced we can solve all problems by talking them out? Nowadays, we tend to turn to medication much more quickly.

This is just a guess. Obviously, the "talk cure" still exists; it just doesn't seem as central to our cultural concerns as it did at the height of the Me Generation.

[Skip2]

Posted: 8/20/11 at 10:24pm

Well, as for ACL, I was bowled over by the original show. Probably because I was that age and I felt like I could be one of those dancers.
At the recent revival, all I could think was: "so if you don't like it so much, get out of the business and design websites or sell real estate or be a lawyer". The world isn't quite so "touchy-feely" anymore.

[blaxx]

Posted: 8/20/11 at 10:26pm

I don't think that there are shows that "don't age well". There are shows that are poorly written and those that are brilliant.

Those that are mediocre or plain bad will always be so, and time will make their flaws more evident. The great shows will simply seem more relevant to different generations, and will shine according to the events surrounding a specific time and staging.

What seems "dated" to you today, might strike a chord to many in a hundred years.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/20/11 at 10:28pm

I think there is room for shows that only appeal to their own era as well as shows that continue to move people 500 years later. And I don't agree the latter are necessarily "better" than the former (though it's true that a lot of shows mentioned here as dated just weren't very good to begin with).

The "test of time" is only one criterion.

[Sauja]

Posted: 8/20/11 at 11:44pm

Bettyboy, I like to think that the trouble with A Chorus Line's reception a few years back was simply the production itself. I grew up completely entranced by the cast recording and probably still listen to it more than any other show. The revival was the first time I ever saw it on stage, and I was more excited for it than I am for many shows at all. But the whole thing really fizzled for me. Other than Deidre Goodwin and maybe Tony Yazbeck and Chryssie Whitehead, I was so let down by the cast who seemed to lack the driving passion that it seemed the show needed. I can't pretend to get inside the performer's heads, but from what I've heard and what I saw of the audition process in Every Little Step, it seemed like they might have just been directed too heavily to recreate the original production rather than really locating their own personal take on the material. Like they were playing who they thought the characters were supposed to be rather than playing the characters themselves.

This is all just sort of wondering out loud...and trying to justify why I didn't love it like I expected to. But I DID love Deidre Goodwin in it. Someone give that woman a great original part to play already!

[RainbowJude]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 12:42am

Reading through this thread has reminded me once again about the difference between a dated show and a period piece that remains resonant in contemporary times.

For example, despite the points raised above, I don't think OKLAHOMA! is a show that is dated. I think it can feel dated, depending on the production. The same goes for several of the shows that have been named in this thread.

Then again, there genuinely are some shows that are so tied to the contexts provided by their original productions that they are museum pieces. But history can be fun too, which is why I wish that musical theatre productions were filmed and made available for public consumption more often and that recordings were given every opportunity to be as complete as possible. For the fun of it. Damn the economics! :P

[charlesjguiteau]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 1:31am

Lots of thoughts on A Chorus Line, from someone who was lucky enough to see the OBC and successive Broadway casts of the original run multiple times.

First, is it dated? To me some of the most tear-inducing moments in ACL have to do with sexuality, especially gay sexuality. As a shy 19-year-old in 1975 just finding out what the big gay world out there could be like, ACL was a revelation. In the intervening 36 years (oh, god, really??), boy has society changed regarding gay sexuality and gay acceptance. For that alone, the show will always be locked into a 1975 mindset, regardless of how universal the themes of self-acceptance and "putting yourself on the line everyday" remain. But that just means the show is a PERIOD show now, a precise evocation of a time now gone. "Dated" suggests that the jokes don't play and the song lyrics are laughable in modern mouths, none of which applies to ACL, at least if performed up to par.

Was the last Broadway revival up to par? I frankly thought it was well more than that, crisply danced and subtly acted in equal measure. I was as moved to tears as I had been all those years ago. And my partner who had never seen the original (well he was 10 at the time) was moved enough to finally understand what all the fuss for ACL had always been about.

Sorry, guys. I'd keep A Chorus Line in the timeless and evergreen column myself.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 1:39am

For example, Rainbow Jude, the UCLA music department did Babes in Arms with the original book about 10 years ago. Certainly that book was specific to the Depression and the detail and jokes were all somewhat removed from today's viewers.

But on the other hand, as you point out, what's so wrong about experiencing a show as those in the 30s did? I thoroughly enjoyed it!

[RainbowJude]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 2:16am

Gaveston2, I don't disagree that there certainly are showed that are genuinely dated. BABES IN ARMS, along with many other musical comedies of the 1930s, would certainly fit the bill, which is why the scores of those shows oftentimes have outlived the shows themselves.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 6:50am

I think it's particularly difficult for comedies that were based in topical humor.

I was accused of hypocrisy for saying that rewriting Babes in Arms was different than rewriting Porgy and Bess, but I do think comedy is a different animal. (Not all comedies, of course. We still perform some work of Aristophanes.)

[RainbowJude]

Posted: 8/21/11 at 10:57pm

Well, rewriting BABES IN ARMS is different from rewriting PORGY AND BESS, at least in regard to the current PORGY AND BESS headed towards Broadway. Rewriting BABES IN ARMS is a case of revision. It actually would be a case of fixing up a musical for whatever reason. Rewriting PORGY AND BESS, in this instance, is a case of adaptation. The opera isn't being fixed up; it is being adapted into a musical. I don't think that's the kind of difference you meant, but it is the one that seems most obvious to me.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/22/11 at 6:56am

The script of Babes in Arms that was licensed in the late 50s or early 60s really was an adaptation, as I recall it. (I last saw it 30 years ago.) It took the original and turned it into something more akin to a unified Rodgers & Hammerstein musical, albeit still a comedy.

Anything Goes has received similar adaptations, at least twice since 1960.

I'm sure you know that many musical comedies of the 20s and 30s were built around vaudeville performers who were basically allowed to do their acts at some point in the story. Updated On: 8/22/11 at 06:56 AM

[RainbowJude]

Posted: 8/22/11 at 11:16pm

Sure, but they aren't adaptations of a piece from one genre into another. BABES IN ARMS is a musical before and after. The intention behind this PORGY AND BESS is to adapt an opera into a musical, whether the naysayers are acknowledging it or not.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 8/22/11 at 11:22pm

Got it, Jude. To me, whether P&B--like Carmen--has some dialogue or just more recitative doesn't change the basic nature of the piece, but I see the distinction you are making.

[justoldbill]

Posted: 8/23/11 at 12:02am

MERRILY WE ROLL ALONG. Not only has it not aged well, it insists on aging badly backwards.

[bobbybaby85]

Posted: 8/23/11 at 12:20am

Updated On: 2/20/18 at 12:20 AM

[Mr. Wonderful]

Posted: 8/23/11 at 9:04am

You're cracked. LES MISERABLES is forever.

[Mr. Wonderful]

Posted: 8/23/11 at 9:05am

You're cracked again. There are LOTS of stars who could do APPLAUSE.

[beagle]

Posted: 8/23/11 at 11:04am

I recently saw a production of Bye Bye Birdie and was struck by how dated it is. While it will certainly still work, for the most part, as a period piece and a show like that is pretty much automatically tied to its time, there were quite a few pop-culture jokes from the era that fell completely flat because very few people in audience knew the references.


Updated On: 8/23/11 at 11:04 AM

[Renart]

Posted: 8/23/11 at 2:57pm

I don't think the problem with A Chorus Line is due to whether it accurately represents the current job requirements of chorus members (sing + dance) because I don't think most theatergoes would notice the distinction. One of the things that made it successful (other than the wow-factor of Bennett's choreography) is that depicting a then-realistic backstage atmosphere was fresh at the time. Up until then, the audience's main exposure was Ruby Keeler and Mickey Rooney musicals. This "behind closed doors" approach to this topic was new. However, from All That Jazz through Black Swan by way of Oprah and reality TV, audiences developed a "been there, done that" attitude toward ACL, even if they've never seen it. Backstage stories are commonplace now. While it's possible to love the cast album and marvel at the dancing, the entire premise of an audition turning into a sharing session does feel dated, unrealistic and hackneyed now. I wanted the Director to say, "For crying out loud, I'm not your mommy! Just shut up and dance." Even a revival with fabulous singing and dancing would still have that feel.

[charlesjguiteau]

Posted: 8/23/11 at 7:55pm

@ renart: I gotta say three words to you regarding ACL: It's a musical! No-one's expecting deep tearstained therapy sessions to really happen during an audition for a Broadway show. They're a device to to take the audience into the backstory of each of the performers onstage. They're a pathway in to the pure artistry of "At the Ballet" and "Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen..." I suppose you could say, well, the device is hackneyed. But as devices go, audiences will apply a greater suspension of disbelief to such devices in a musical than in a straight play, especially if they allow the show to soar into those peak emotional highs for which A Chorus Line is famous.

[zamedy]

Posted: 8/23/11 at 10:34pm

The two Annies... ANNIE and ANNIE GET YOUR GUN (And I say this as a fan of both).

ANNIE just comes off as very dated to me because of its frequent references to President FDR and the Depression.

ANNIE GET YOUR GUN really needs no explanation beyond the title... although one prime example that stands out is "I'm An Indian, Too."

That said, it doesn't mean these shows should be permanently retired. AGYR has, in my opinion, one of the greatest musical scores ever written. And, when you have a solid Annie (to me: one you don't want to punch in the face) *AND* a deliciously ruthless Miss Hannigan, ANNIE can still be a fun night of musical theatre.