Are musicals fun?- Page 2

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 1/4/04 at 10:34pm

Updated On: 1/4/04 at 10:34 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/9/04 at 4:17pm

Fun musicals are no longer allowed to exist without ripping them to shreds or looking down on them as tourist attractions. For the past 15 years or so, the standards for musicals have been raised so high by critics and fans that I don't see how any show could live up to them. It's almost as if any show that purely entertains or has an uplifting spirit is immediately stomped upon by these huge egos who think musicals should not be designed to entertain at all.

Every show out there represents a creative artistic team and hard-working individuals as performers, stagehands, techs, etc. that have created a unique experience. Each show has its own specific purpose whether it is designed to make us cry, laugh, ponder, or scream. Why do we accept one as art and not another? Who are we to judge what a musical should or should not be? The freedom of form is the definition of art. It is ever-changing and we can look forward to new experiences as well as maintaining the classics. Just because Impressionism is no longer at the height of its movement, should painters no longer be allowed to use it?

Sumofallthings - "The day Cats opened that fateful day and Andrew Lloyd Webber reared his ugly head. Disney continued the Brit-Tradition."

Lloyd Webber "reared his ugly head" with Jesus Christ Superstar in 1971, then again with Evita in 1979 and Joseph in January of 1982 before Cats opened. He's written some pretty amazing shows and rivals only Rodgers and Hammerstein in worldwide popularity. I son't see anything ugly about that. Disney has opened only three shows and many others big American shows have run as well (Ragtime, Titanic, Scarlet Pimpernel, The Producers). The only correlation to the "Brit-Tradition" is that they have been international hits. I'm not sure what the problem is.

[Etcy]

Posted: 1/9/04 at 6:46pm

Um well, I don't exactly believe that musicals have stopped being fun. But I guess I'm confused on your idea of "fun." Fun to watch? Fun to perform? Fun just want to make you get up and dance your ass off? I think musicals still have all those qualities. I mean CATS definetly does that for me, as well as Millie, Hairspray, Full Monty, Wicked, 42nd Street, H2$,Avenue Q, etc etc etc. The list goes on and on for me. But maybe that's just me?

~*Etcy*~ Updated On: 1/9/04 at 06:46 PM

[DavidMegg]

Posted: 1/9/04 at 6:57pm

While I don't have the answer to Bulldog's question, I have pondered this also and my thoughts are that in the past (say 2+ years ago) when thinking about a show I've just seen, I soak it all in, and maybe have the chance to talk about it with a few people.
Nowadays, with the internet and boards like this, there are a varied range of opinions, praises, critics and everything in between. While I would never trade the opportunity to talk about my love of theatre with the people on the board, I think about the days when it was me in my room with my cast recording just enjoying it on a personal level.
To that end, I think Bulldog is referring to a time when things were simpler, less harshley critiqued, and whether the show was good or bad; not overly analyzed.
Reading over this post, I suppose I don't have a point to make other than this: I believe Broadway was more "fun" when we allowed it to be on our own individual level.
My 2 cents,
David. Updated On: 1/9/04 at 06:57 PM