Dan Savage Interviews Frank Rich on Sondheim, lloyd Webber. AIDS, Homosexuality, the Theater and Journalism- Page 3

[Unknown User]

Posted: 10/27/09 at 7:25pm

well to get back on topic, I think ALW has been disastrous to theater. People go see one of his shows and then are reluctant to ever go see anything again. I think the TDF should stand outside Cats and say "All musicals aren't like that, really!"

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/27/09 at 9:56pm

Here comes Mister Matt with the populist charge, he said non-bullyingly.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/27/09 at 10:32pm

Well, if I didn't do it, who would? It's what the populist American Express is for. And my card is platinum.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/27/09 at 10:45pm

Snob!

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/28/09 at 12:32pm

Hey, I only need 2,400 more Populist Points to earn my free ticket to Wicked in the West End.

But maybe I should take a different approach to my question (which may be regarded as rhetorical, so feel free to skip ahead to the next post, Namo): How would Broadway have benefited from the absence of Andrew Lloyd Webber? I mean, his arrival to Broadway (in the 70s) with Jesus Christ Superstar was met with controversy and the conservative criticism to the alleged blasphemous structure and content of the show is the sort of thing we see lauded today by the theatre community for its edginess and bravery. And Evita (another 70s opening), from what I have read of most popular opinions in forums such as these, is mostly condemned by musical theatre enthusiasts [EDIT: I lost my train of thought due to attaching Evita to the wrong Tony season...so why is it condemned again?]. Anyway, both shows have had enduring qualities that have irrevocably landed them places in musical theatre history, which doesn't sound that "unfortunate" to me. But if we're speaking specifically of the 80s, I can only assume the focus to be on Cats and Phantom of the Opera, to which he must be referring that it is lamentable the shows he feels are artistically inferior broke record runs on Broadway. But who is the real loser? They were financially sound investments that took up a small fraction of real estate and entertained millions.

Broadway has had thousands of hits over the last century, so why is it that the hits of Lloyd Webber are the primary target of such derision? And before anyone starts the mountain/molehill blather...I know. It was an obviously off-the-cuff remark made at a predictable and easy target given that he never mentioned anything else about it in the rest of the interview. Maybe next time, I'll simply placate him and chuckle obediently, but for now, I'd rather talk about it.


Edited for brain fart.

Updated On: 10/28/09 at 12:32 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/28/09 at 4:22pm

It was not the Lloyd Webber of JCS or even Evita.

It was the bloated ubiquity of Cats and Phantom and Starlight and even Aspects of Love happening alongside the other bloated British imports that were not his, like Les Miz and Miss Saigon.

And they were happening at a time when American writers and directors were either failing themselves (like A Doll's Life or Bring Back Birdie) or failing and then dying, either from AIDS (like Michael Bennett failing with Ballroom and leaving Chess) or other causes (like Bob Fosse with Big Deal), and people were going to memorial services more often than they were going to openings.

Even Times Square was a hell-hole. It was all very depressing. That big billboard over the Winter Garden that said "CATS: Now and Forever" seemed like a sad, sick joke. Who cares if Cats is forever--if the kittens are dying in their early 30s?

So, yes, those bloated British musicals were saving the industry, but too many people were dying for anyone to feel good about Broadway.

But how can anyone hate Boublil and Schoenberg or Cameron McIntosh? The face to hate was the bloated face of ALW.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/28/09 at 5:35pm

It was not the Lloyd Webber of JCS or even Evita.

But how can anyone hate Boublil and Schoenberg or Cameron McIntosh? The face to hate was the bloated face of ALW.

So I guess his crime was his ubiquitous non-American presence during a dark decade on Broadway.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/28/09 at 6:38pm

Pretty much.

And a lot of sappy, syrupy music and silly, empty spectacle, some of which seems to overcompensate for his bad writing, like the falling chandelier in Phantom and the roller skating in Starlight, and some of which, as I said, he had nothing to do with, like the helicopter in Miss Saigon. All his fault.

Oh. And for hiring Sarah Brightman--and for firing Patti LuPone.

As a matter of fact, until I joined BroadwayWorld, I had no idea that anyone even liked him at all, post-Evita.

It was quite the eye-opener.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/28/09 at 7:25pm

Well, I would say the music was debatable, except that one of the many traits of a good musical theatre composer is to have memorable tunes that stand the test of time. He did it several times over. As for the spectacle...well...not entirely his fault (especially when they are not his shows), but much of it worked and Broadway audiences did decide which of his shows they preferred to see, which did not always coincide with his success in London (i.e. Starlight Express). In the case of Phantom, as much as I have tried to dislike it, I see the gorgeous staging and spectacle and I end up finding it stunning and the music for most of the first act is quite beautiful, but yeah, it devolves into repetition in the second act. But I don't hate the man for that. As for Sarah and Patti, well, you do have a point there.

But yes, people like Andrew Lloyd Webber and not just because he was a frequent Broadway presence in the 80s. Some people genuinely like the music he has composed. I don't like all of it, but I see absolutely no reason for HATING the man or that his "arrival" was "unfortunate" nor that his presence directly had anything to do with the AIDS epidemic on Broadway other than timing. Cats was the right show at the right time. Phantom was the better show at a better time. Since then, it's not as if the man has had much impact on Broadway at all.

But when it comes to Broadway, there is a LOT of sappy, syrupy music out there, even written by the most celebrated of composers.

[Pgenre]

Posted: 10/28/09 at 7:42pm

And, I guess we have to remember that ALW's predecessors as "masters" of the theatre, Jerry Herman and Sondheim, both had their biggest successes with shows that relied in large part on spectacle (HELLO DOLLY, MAME, LA CAGE and COMPANY, A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC and SWEENEY TODD (plus FOLLIES was the most expensive show of all time up until that point, though it was a flop so it is exempt from this argument)), though, in at least the case of Sondheim, the brilliance of the writing overshadowed even that spectacle (though not to all, and certainly not all the reviewers, at the time) and, of course those shows hold up.

We'll see where John Doyle's 2025 take on CATS gets us, with no cat costumes or floating tires. At least that one has T.S. Eliot's words.

P

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/28/09 at 8:56pm

I don't think spectacle overshadowed the performances in HELLO DOLLY, MAME, LA CAGE and COMPANY or A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC--if you count the dancing (in the first 3) as performance rather than spectacle. Boris Aronson's sets for Company and Night Music were brilliant, but the opposite of spectacle.

With Follies, the spectacle wasn't just stage effect. In Michael Bennett's hands, the Follies spectacle was character and storytelling.

Only the foundry set in Sweeney Todd really demonstrates your point--which is maybe why I hated it so much--but, as you say, the sheer virtuosity of Sondheim's writing was way more prominent than the set.

As for Doyle's 2025 no-cat-costumes Cats, my friend Reed, who originated Skimbleshanks on Broadway, would be thrilled to descend from the Heavyside Layer for that. He HATED those kitty costumes.



Reed Jones, 1954-1989

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/29/09 at 1:02am

A Cat hated his cat costume? To quote Ralph Wiggum, that's unpossible!

It would be great for MisterMatt to hear the unvarnished truth of what the performers of that show and others of the Webber oeuvre really think of the material they perform (as distinct from the checks they get and the work it provides them).

I'm not going to say who, I'm not going to say when, but I got a Broadway Cat to finally let his or her guard down one time (after talking and talking and talking and eventually getting past the "I learned SO much the X years I was in that show!") and it was sidesplitting! I remember a sense of relief as she or he spoke, kind of a "Oh! You KNOW it's trash!" kind of a thing. He or she said they did. But it was a job. And there wasn't a sense of "They enjoy it and we're entertaining them" attitude. It was more of a "Bless their hearts. They don't seem to know any better."

I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know I know that smacks of elitism, MisterMatt, but the fact is when you're involved in a PT Barnum-like experience, I think you eventually come to see the audience as rubes.

I shall with withhold my knowledge gleaned after a much later conversation with a longtime Phantom cast member lest you be disappointed.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 10/29/09 at 6:41am

I don’t understand why the kitty costumes were ever allowed to become just that. The original concept was for the costumes to be much more punk and to express the character of the cat rather than to actually look like a cat. This can be seen in some of the early photos of the London production and its dress rehearsals.

But nor should it be forgotten that TS Eliot’s poems were written for children. Cats was never going to be about anything other than cats. Apparently when Hal Prince was shown an early draft and played a few songs, his response was something along the lines of “I don’t get it. Is Grizabella supposed to be Queen Victoria and a couple of these other cats Disraeli and Gladstone?” To which Lloyd Webber apparently replied “No Hal, it’s about cats” and thus Mr Prince didn’t get to direct it.

So Cats doesn’t have a book and relies on special effects and key changes to create false emotion.

But performers, critics and audiences cannot dismiss it on the grounds of the substance of its lyric poetry. Although they’re written for children they are incredibly evocative, particularly for a British audience who knew (or want to understand) the era that Eliot wrote of. Skimbleshanks is one my favourites: does this echo Auden’s Night Mail or vice versa? Either way they both personify the peculiar hold that trains (from train spotting to Trainspotting) have on British culture.

And the lyric (which I understand to be Eliot and not Nunn) that begins

She haunted many a low resort
’round the grimy road of Tottenham Court

through to

The postman sighed as he scratched his head:
“You really ha’ thought she’d ought to be dead.”

is the point at which ALW’s career does touch the intellectual and creative heights of Sondheim & Prince. The marriage of music and lyric here is both stunningly beautiful, appropriate and superbly evocative whilst Eliot’s metaphor is as bold as anything Hal Prince imagined for Follies, Sweeney Todd or even his Victorian conceptualisation of Cats.

But I’m not saying what the metaphor is. I’ll leave the Cats naysayers to guess.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/29/09 at 8:07am

I don’t understand why the kitty costumes were ever allowed to become just that. The original concept was for the costumes to be much more punk and to express the character of the cat rather than to actually look like a cat.

If that had been the case, the show would never have run forever.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/29/09 at 10:07am

"So Cats doesn’t have a book and relies on special effects and key changes to create false emotion."

I think it's more that than the fact that they are poems about cats written for children that makes it so unbeloved, shall we say.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 10/29/09 at 10:23am

"But I’m not saying what the metaphor is. I’ll leave the Cats naysayers to guess."

Come on now, share. What's the metaphor? Is it a reference to Grizabella being a prostitute and thus a potential victim of Jack the Ripper?

There are other metaphors and literary references in the OLD POSSUM poems. My favorite is the way that Macavity The Mystery Cat is described in terms that are taken very nearly word for word from the Sherlock Holmes story THE FINAL PROBLEM, in describing Professor Moriarty. Nice little inside joke, but rendered moot when the wacked out psycho Macavity appeared onstage, the exact living opposite of Eliot's creation.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/29/09 at 10:37am

Ok, so there are Broadway performers who think it is trash and hate the piece. My roommate in London loved performing Cats. I know actors who have HATED performing Chekhov, Beckett and Mamet, but don't speak with such venom every time their name arises simply because of their personal experience with the material. I guess I find it strange that, while I understand the issue of personal taste, I don't get how that somehow interferes with the knowledge that apparently the man did something right and did it well enough to have contributed works that have resonated with audiences in various countries and cultures the world over. Works that include songs that are quickly become standard classics.

But I'm not trying to change people's mind or call anyone "elitist". I'm truly just trying to understand the other points of view. Mostly all you ever hear is how ALW sucks and no real detail or explanation. This helps. Thank you guys for answering my questions. I'd love to hear more on the subject.

So Cats doesnâ??t have a book and relies on special effects and key changes to create false emotion.

I would disagree on "false emotion" just a bit. The show is mostly atmospheric fluff, as it was written and staged to be, but I did experience moments of true joy and the first time I saw Memory performed in context of the show, I found it devastatingly poignant and moving. One consistent undertone I notice to many complaints regarding Cats specifically, is this sense of unfulfilled expectation that the show simply wasn't structured and written the way people think it should have been. Personally, I found it to be an innovative, unique, creative, memorable and entertaining.

Updated On: 10/29/09 at 10:37 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/29/09 at 3:19pm

Marlene Danielle stayed in the cats of Cats from the day it opened to the day it closed.


'DARLING, YOU WERE PURR-FECT' Marlene Danielle hangs up her whiskers

Updated On: 10/29/09 at 03:19 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/29/09 at 5:12pm

Great article! Thanks PJ!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/29/09 at 5:32pm

Both Marlene and Reed were in the 1980 Broadway revival of West Side Story. Marlene can be seen as one of the Shark girls in the Tony Awards clip of Debbie Allen doing "America."

[Scripps2]

Posted: 10/29/09 at 5:57pm

"I would disagree on false emotion just a bit."

Well, yes. When is emotion false and when is it not? And who is to decide whether an emotion is valid or otherwise? Is an emotional response to dramatic music scored against a special effect less valid than an emotional response to good writing and acting? My emotional response to Cats hearing it as a twelve year old would be very different to my emotional reponse to it now.

"I guess we have to remember that ALW's predecessors as masters of the theatre... had their biggest successes with shows that relied in large part on spectacle"

One of the criticisms levelled at the London production of On The Twentieth Century was that, no matter how spectacular and clever it was, it didn't emotionally involve the audience. The same critics made similar points about the equally unsuccessful London production of Sweeney Todd a few months later. It would seem that these reviews were not lost on ALW and Mackintosh as they geared themselves up for Cats and all that followed.

[TulitaPepsi]

Posted: 10/29/09 at 7:27pm

What a lost opportunity.