A concept DOES a musical make.

I just finished reading that post about kiddie threads/rabid fan threads/FILL IN THE BLANK is hot threads. And I can't help but agree that the proliferation of threads like these frustrate me. But as was stated in the the post, one must lead by example. So I will endeavor to create a theatre post of some substance. If you disagree, than I apologize.

I saw BIG RIVER the other night. Crap show. Crap crap crappy show. However, the production of this crappy show moved me to no end. So I've been trying to decide what about it moved me so. I'm not so sentimental a person that I watched and thought, 'Good for the deaf people. Aren't they darling trying to be on Broadway.' I was left awe-struck by Tyrone Girodano's performance of Huck, not because he was deaf, but because it was so perfectly delineated...so amazingly truthful. Had I been sitting through a traditional production of Big River, I would have gouged out my eyes and stuffed them in my ears. But, instead, I was left feeling changed. Why?

Believe it or not, I think it has to do with why I loved the Lion King. Lots of people despise the fact that Lion King won Best Musical over Ragtime, and lots of people loved the opening of Lion King, but nothing else. However, I was entranced from beginning to end. It was the marriage of theatre techniques from around the world (puppetry, African music, pop and low burlesque) that truly moved me. I watched a show that allowed a musical to be more than what we've come to know musicals to be. Many who are perfectly comfortable with the conventions of musical theatre had many (probably legitimate) gripes with LK. I, who studied a couple of different concepts of world theatre, was moved by the imaginative melding of these concepts. People decried the text of LK. I won't disagree with them. But any production is whole that is larger than the sum of its parts and, for me, LK created a whole that was incredibly strong, interesting and moving, much in the same way BIG RIVER did for me on Saturday. It's whole, with a different way of presenting a musical, worked much better than its parts (book, score, design).

Ragtime, on the other hand, had a terrific book and score, but a production that never fully found its footing. The marriage between Brechtian conceits and traditional musical theatre razamatazz was a rocky one, at best. The show never produced either the chilling, distancing effect that Brecht perfected or the fully realized emotional grandeur of, say, the bench scene in Carousel...at least for me.

So, what are your opinions? Can the concept of a piece just as important as the text you are given?

---

Oh shame, I LOVE Big River, I havent seem the new show but BIG RIVER is a gorgeous show, maybe it helped that I was Huck in the show i was in... :)

This goes to show the magic of theater. I do not mean that in a clichéd way, but literally. How can intelligent theatregoers use one side of the brain to evaluate a show on an intellectual level, come to the conclusion that the show is “Crap” and still not fail to be moved by it emotionally? We all have those shows we know are really pretty rotten, but cry every time. Mine is MAN OF LA MANCHA. I think it is a pretty hokey show, the music for the most part is pretty mediocre, but the end ALWAYS moves me to tears. There must be something working.

On the other hand, I once saw a Mary Zimmerman production that was beautiful physically. I told my acting teacher all about it at my next class. I went into detail about how great the costumes, sets, lighting were. She stopped me and said, “BUT DID IT MOVE YOU?” I thought for a second and answered, “No, not really.” And she said, “THEN IT DOESN’T MATTER, DOES IT?” She was a cool teacher and that taught me a lot.

---