1970s Broadway

[jarndyce]

Posted: 9/8/12 at 12:34pm

I've seen a discussion or two here, but I'd like very much to engage in a vivid one regarding these years and the New York theater. I was lucky enough to come in at the end of the Golden Age: 'Pippin' was my first show, and I'd go weekly to see everything from Dewhurst and Robards in 'Misbegotten' to 'Night Music' (3 times). Yes, there were hookers and sex films all along 8th Ave., but I never felt threatened. More importantly, there was an intimacy to going to the theater that is blatantly gone. I do not romanticize - many shows were just plain bad. Still, the experience was always marvelous because spectacle and technology never eclipsed the connection. Why, you could even hang by the stage doors in the alleyways and congratulate the stars, from Julie Harris to Liz Ashley. Again - who'd like to examine this epoch with me, swap memories, investigate the true reasons behind the end of the era?

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 9/8/12 at 1:16pm

I've mentioned this before on bww, and my memories (all our inviting! my memories! all our exciting! my memories burn in my mind with a steady glow!.....oh sorry) are no doubt highly romantic, but so what?

I first came to New York when I was ten in 1970. Promises, Promises was my first Bdwy show (that score, Orbach, O'Hara, magic!). I was just a little Midwestern small town kid. So perhaps its not surprising that just being in the theater district was palpably transporting for me.

More specifically I just remember being in the vicinity of people who were in reality and in my ten year old imagination beloved stars. Darrieux had replaced Hepburn in Coco. Bacall was still in Applause. Kiley may have still been in Man of La Mancha??? (I'm sure someone here will tell me, but as Tom Wingfield says, in memory everything always seems to happen to music...)

What i recall most of all from walking around was a single Morosco marquis that looked roughly the size of Montana. CLAIRE BLOOM in THE INNOCENTS directed by HAROLD PINTER. That image has remained with me, representing the starstruck excitement of going to a Broadway show, what is good and powerful and true and glamorous.

Decades later I had the privilege of actually seeing Bloom on Bradway, with Zoe Wanamaker in Electra. Bloom made her entrance like a true star, looking positively gorgeous (I guess she was 70 at the time), wearing red, and proceeded to give a performance I will never forget.

As Elaine Stritch aptly described her excitement seeing Christine Ebersole in Grey Gardens. "That's coffee. THAT'S COFFEE! THAT'S TALENT!"

Updated On: 9/8/12 at 01:16 PM

[jarndyce]

Posted: 9/8/12 at 2:29pm

Thanks for the feedback. I hear you, as the kids used to say. In terms of physicality, it wasn't a marquee for me - it was that white stone on the facades, near the brass and glass doors. I realized this early this year when I walked what was the district; the curves and shape of those facades was home, as I waited to enter and take my seat. Thank GOD (as Stritch would say), some of those facades remain. My point being, I have tortured myself trying to pin down what real changes there have been, beyond my getting older. As I said, many shows in my day were lousy, and I knew it as a teenager. But even the bad ones seemed less slick, as though the creators honestly thought they were offering quality. 'Seesaw'. NOT a great show, but there was clearly heart (and Bennett's staging) in it. I cannot at all understand the lure of tech spectacle. Then there is the physicality, which is critical, and I also cannot accept, so many years later, the nightmares of the Marriott and the Minskoff. In the 70s, the theater district was completely on a human scale, which allowed a scared kid like me to believe in possibilities. I'm rambling - someone else, talk.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/8/12 at 6:08pm

I think the old shows WERE less slick. The lights and sets weren't computerized, the music wasn't continually "sweetened" with recordings. As a result, a human being had to make a decision every time a light dimmed or a drop came in; the cues themselves were written with the limitations of human beings in mind.

It's probably true that we wouldn't notice the difference in any one change, but when you have hundreds of changes over the course of two hours, I think it does make a difference whether those cues come from and are intended for people or machines.

And the natural outcome of all this (often wonderful) technology was that shows began to compete to see who could outdo whom and we ended up with the "spaceship show", the "helicopter show", the "boat in the basement" show, etc.

PIPPIN (mentioned above) has all sorts of amazing visual moments, but nobody ever said, "We're going to see that show with the great light curtain in the opening number!"

For me, the dramatic difference became apparent with LES MIZ. I moved from New York and largely avoided the ALW spectacles until LES MIZ came to L.A. I knew the album well and loved it so I splurged on house seats. What I saw at the Schubert was so fundamentally mechanical, I had to question whether it was "live theater" at all, despite the presence of live actors. In fact, it was something more akin to a theme park.

But what can we expect when we no longer talk about characters, parts or roles? A "track" is something designed for a machine to move from one place to another. Updated On: 9/8/12 at 06:08 PM

[jv92]

Posted: 9/8/12 at 6:23pm

I hate the term "track." It disgusts me. What moron came up with it?

(Track as in a person's "ensemble track", etc. A CD track or a train track is just fine.)

[jarndyce]

Posted: 9/8/12 at 6:28pm

That goes to my big, big issue. McKay's documentary, The Golden Age, like others, argues the changes and ultimately decides that Broadway is doing fine. That's NOT the point. I know the theater is thriving. But it's very, very different theater. And I think it's far worse. Beating to death a tired debate, the reality is that, when a singer is miked, the live performance is filtered. Similarly, human imperfections make a live orchestra exciting in a way sound boards can't. The more tech, the less human. It's that simple. Then, this drive for $$$ (which I know has always been, if not on this scale) influences plain plays. As I said, I saw crummy plays in the 70s, along with great ones. But even the crummy ones had a gravity to them. There was a weight, even in the comedies, that defined them as theater, and not as possibly sitcom script. To wit: 'A Behanding in Spokane' not long ago, which is more of an extended SNL skit than a true play. The entire value system is changed, no matter the crowds and the profits.

[jarndyce]

Posted: 9/8/12 at 6:32pm

PS Bless y'all, but I get to ramble more. Note 'Follies'. Interesting, isn't it, that in its original day the staircase was not an actual focus, save as a piece of Aronson's brilliant design? IT was not an attraction, except as how it would further the show. As opposed to, of course, 'Sunset'. Same with the elevators in 'Company'. There was not in those days an undue emphasis on these feats of technology because it was understood that they were only in place to augment THE SHOW.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/8/12 at 6:36pm

It's true that probably every generation has claimed that the theater declined during its time. (In Aristotle's POETICS, the plays and writers he extols almost all come from before his time even.)

But jarndyce, I like what you wrote above about the "human scale" of Broadway before the 1980s. That was true of the theaters themselves, but also the very buildings of the theater district.

Updated On: 9/8/12 at 06:36 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 9/8/12 at 6:54pm

It's funny, because in all the books I read as a kid, the 1970s were described as a dark age for Broadway. But a huge majority of my favorite shows came from that era... I have really enjoyed reading people's thoughts in this thread.

[jarndyce]

Posted: 9/8/12 at 7:08pm

Thanks, and I'm very encouraged up by your comments. This subject has so haunted me because I so don't want to be a whining, stereotypical old fart. I honestly think that humanity aspect can't be overstated. 'Pippin', for example, was not a great show. Neither was 'Chorus Line' (although I was totally swept away by it, even as I noticed the weakness). So - what made them legends? The human talents of Fosse and Bennett. Then, in those days, melodramatic excess (as in 'Chorus') was an occasional lapse. In the Lloyd-Webber universe, it's the whole impetus, and I can't get past a lack of REGARD for true musical/dramatic quality today, which was in place in the 70s, and even within not great shows. Somewhere, volume and gross over-production became the core of theater.
Ah, the 70s. Then, you sat at a bar and the people around you would be talking about themes, characters, and technique. What do they discuss today? How interesting it is to do an all-black 'Streetcar', when the lead is IDENTIFIED in the play as Polish?

[jarndyce]

Posted: 9/8/12 at 7:10pm

Dark Age? It was a blast. AND you could get a third-row center seat in the orchestra for $20 on a matinee.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/8/12 at 7:20pm

Eric, I think the 1970s were a Dark Age in that the number of hits were few. But, oh, what hits they were!

The decade started with COMPANY/FOLLIES/ALNM and ended with SWEENEY TODD.

In the middle, CHICAGO and A CHORUS LINE battled at the Tonys!

It doesn't get much better than that.

(Obviously, it was the decade before AIDS decimated the community. I suppose it's only fair we acknowledge we are looking back to a time when Bennett, Fosse, Champion and Prince were all active in the theater. And then we got what, Trevor Nunn? No doubt I just offended SOMEone, but I can't put Nunn in the same league with the others.)

Updated On: 9/8/12 at 07:20 PM

[jv92]

Posted: 9/8/12 at 7:23pm

Neither can I, Gaveston. Don't worry.

[jarndyce]

Posted: 9/8/12 at 8:23pm

Offend away. Also, as Fran Lebowitz notes, AIDS decimated the audiences too, so the appreciation/taste levels dropped. Enter Mr. Nunn.

[jv92]

Posted: 9/8/12 at 9:01pm

Nunn just doesn't understand American musicals, like many British directors, and unfortunately, like many American directors in recent years.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/8/12 at 9:03pm

Boy, did you just say a mouthful, jv!

[jv92]

Posted: 9/8/12 at 9:08pm

Oops.

There are some British directors whose work in the musical theater I think is just great: Hytner, Doyle (when he has the musicians in the pit), just to name two.

There are SO many American directors (who just so happen to be choreographers, too) who don't know a damned thing about how to stage a number well, let alone a full show. And unfortunately, they're getting the most work-- Kathleen Marshall and Rob Ashford.

I do think, however, that Susan Stroman and Marsha Milgrom Dodge are exceptional. Stroman's been doing great work for a long time, but I was dazzled by Dodge's RAGTIME.

And of course, Bartlett Sher.

[jarndyce]

Posted: 9/8/12 at 9:14pm

Amen. (Notice how I won't shut up? The day off...).
I would reinforce that, based on my experiences, editing the theater district SERIOUSLY screwed with the energy. I loved beyond measure 44th - 48th streets, that fabulous grid. The hideous Minskoff, followed by the dystopian nightmare of the Marriott, essentially ripped up that arena badly. How could this not impact the artists working there? What is a Daffy Dan's doing on 44th St? I love the store but it doesn't belong there.
Now, share memories, guys. One of mine: Hermione Gingold, sitting like an empress in the dirty alley of the Majestic outside the stage door, chatting with me and then making it clear that I was wasting my time, if I was hoping to speak to Glynnis John. "Miss Johns doesn't COME out," she somewhat contemptuously said.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/8/12 at 9:18pm

As *I* remember Miss Gingold, there's no telling what she actually said. She was incomprehensible and yet oddly wonderful on stage. LOL.

(This is a joke. I'm not actually questioning your memory.)

[jv92]

Posted: 9/8/12 at 9:20pm

See, I would think Glynis Johns WOULD come out of the stage door, but Gingold wouldn't. Shows what I know.

[jarndyce]

Posted: 9/8/12 at 9:21pm

Dunno. I only saw Youtube clips of the last 'Follies', and I was disgusted by the clumsy, amateurish choreography. Honestly, musicals no longer interest me at all, going back to 'Ragtime' - they substitute big, grandiose sound for genuinely good music. Friends dragged me to 'Wicked' (but I still sit there, hoping for greatness) and I was simultaneously bored and appalled. Lots and lots of noise over an adolescent framework. Conversely: I will never ever forget watching the conductor's back when the opening number of 'Pacific Overtures' began. Hearing that pulse, feeling that raw creativity commencing...I quaked. Yes, the show was flawed, but they were flaws when talent goes wrong, not the kind when talent is absent, or substituted.

[jv92]

Posted: 9/8/12 at 9:26pm

Dodge didn't choreography the last FOLLIES. And I thought Warren Carlyle's work was flawed on that revival, but far better than Ashford or Marshall.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/8/12 at 9:53pm

See, I would think Glynis Johns WOULD come out of the stage door, but Gingold wouldn't. Shows what I know.

I don't know about Johns, but Gingold was very down-to-earth. She just happened to fit some American stereotype of an upper-class, Continental type.

A stage manager friend of mine was helping her shop at Sears when she suddenly realized that Gingold had dropped her pants and was standing in the middle of the store wearing nothing below-the-waist but pantyhose.

[After Eight]

Posted: 9/8/12 at 9:59pm

1970s Broadway?

It was the worst of times, it was the worst of times.

"It doesn't get much better than that."

It does, and it did.

Look, could we please not fall into the trap of looking at everything through a sentimentalized, egocentric perspective? Just because one saw one's first Broadway shows as a tyke doesn't mean that they were better than every show previously. One has fond adolescent memories of 1970s Broadway? Well, other people were adolescents in the 60s, 50s, 40s and every decade previously. And they can claim that they saw better shows. And they are right.

So let us savor our memories. They're to be treasured. But 1970s Broadway is decidedly not.

[jarndyce]

Posted: 9/8/12 at 10:14pm

See, my entire thrust was gaining feedback to AVOID sentimentalizing (unless overtly set out as such). As I've repeatedly said that, as a dizzy teen, I knew i was seeing some serious garbage on those Broadway stages. So let's not reduce what could be an honest, and not entirely subjective/romanticized, assessment of changes in the NYC theater scene to so trite a form. The reality is, is that there are those of us who fully acknowledge the force of generational hindsight, yet still feel that CONTENT has changed, and not for the better. Or, put another way: in the 70s, I saw Glenda Jackson, Jessica Tandy, Hume Cronyn, Julie Harris, Rex Harrison, Jason Robards, Deborah Kerr, Eli Wallach, Anne Jackson, and a LOT of other really, really fine actors, often in more than one play. Who in the 90s or the naughts has walked the boards? Doesn't that in itself say something about the material being produced?