America is too commercial — Page 2

Artistic merit isn't defined, it's subjective. The only thing objective about commercial theater is revenue. In my opinion, there is quite a wide variety of things on Broadway and I think it's great. Someone else may think it's all too "commercial" and not artistic enough, and others may find it all too artsy for them.

But I am glad that despite a number of short runs the last few seasons, business is booming.

And, on the topic of Fun Home, two things should really be pointed out to the OP. First one, it won the Tony for best musical. And, number two, it recouped its losses, officially considering it a hit.

sinister teashop--love your avator of Bobby Helpman who I had the pleasure of meeting many times later in his life and listening to him tell countless stories about his amazing colourful life and people he had met.

Long before I finally met him socially I was in the audience[probably I was 10] at a TV studio in Brisbane where they were taping some interview programme and Bobby was a guest-so I boldly asked for his autograph. I had no idea who he was but was with my sister so I wrote next to his autograph[which I still have]---'a famous ballet dancer' .One day I showed it to him-to his amusement, and won't say what he said in response.

So thanks for your avator and bringing up forgotten memories.

SL.................x

I saw both shows only once. Hated Fun Home and enjoyed Aladdin very mildly, although I thought it was pretty mediocre.

Couple of points:

-- Friends are always asking me to recommend shows. I will generally recommend Aladdin to folks who are taking kids (most of the kids have already seen The Lion King), although I will make it clear that it is pretty lame at times and that they won't love it ass much as the kids. As long as their kids are likely to enjoy it, they don't care.

-- People loved the movie. They are hoping to recapture that fun...and a lot of them succeed, based on the one audience

-- I didn't dislike Fun Home. I hated it. I have a decent number of friends who also didn't like / hated it. In my case, I thought it was depressing and I was underwhelmed by the Tony award winning direction. Interestingly, I like most of the score, although I hate the song about Joan, and don't like Telephone Wire. In my case, listening to the CD is much preferable to seeing the production.

I go to the theatre a lot and have pretty broad tastes. If I don't like something, its no big deal. Most people who ask me go 2 - 4 times a year. They want a safe bet...a recommendation for something that I think they are likely to enjoy a lot. I know them well enough and, based on the shows I have seen and the feedback on those I haven't seen, I make recommendations; and I am pretty typically right. Based on my own view and those of at least half a dozen friends, I really don't think this is the type of show the occasional viewer is going to want to see. If they want to be depressed, they might as well wait for the next revival of Streetcar or LDJIN. That's a lot of people.

-- I am sure the people who produced Fun Home did not expect it to be a huge financial hit. They produced it because they thought it had something important to say, etc., etc., and that some people would love it. Just like investors in many Sondheim shows, they hoped to make back their investment, and they did. Good for them, even if I hated it.

-- I am very frustrated that more people didn't see The Visit or The Scottsboro Boys or the Baz Luhrmann La Boheme or the Christopher Plummer Cyrano, all of which I thought were great shows...and all of which lost money. At least, Fun Home made its investment back.

Interesting that for some it all seems to be about high-brow, middle-brow, or low-brow. Or about affinities for commercial or niche projects.

Good, bad and middling quality each cuts across all of the aforementioned categories.

Why do people see Aladdin ? and not something like Fun Home when it was running

You should probably ask DeRubaJ et al.

^ Excellent point. Many people go to the theater as a temporary escape from tough reality, not to experience more of it.

trpguyy said: "Artistic merit isn't defined, it's subjective. The only thing objective about commercial theater is revenue. In my opinion, there is quite a wide variety of things on Broadway and I think it's great. Someone else may think it's all too "commercial" and not artistic enough, and others may find it all too artsy for them.

But I am glad that despite a number of short runs the last few seasons, business is booming.



"

With all due respect, serious critics (I'm talking Aristotle, not Clive Barnes) have been defining artistic quality objectively for at least 2500 years. Doing so does require a formal list of criteria, because the standards may vary.

I don't see the evidence that "public tastes" have been shifting from the artistic to the merely commercial. Isn't HAMILTON the hottest ticket on Broadway? Say what you like, a musical about the first Secretary of the Treasury is hardly "cynically commercial". A couple of years ago, that perennial flop, FOLLIES, played Washington, New York and Los Angeles. It may have lost money and it still isn't a piece that appeals to a wide audience, but it attracts passionate support from those who love it.

ETA OKLAHOMA! is not inferior to CAROUSEL. That's absurd. We may have lost the sense of national solidarity that made OKLAHOMA! so powerful in 1943, but it is not an inferior work.

Updated On: 10/3/16 at 11:00 PM

"Say what you like, a musical about the first Secretary of the Treasury is hardly "cynically commercial"."

Oh, please.

^^^Are you comparing OKLAHOMA! with CAROUSEL or THE KING AND I?

I'm not going to defend OKLAHOMA! by knocking CAROUSEL. I love the latter, too.

But I think you underestimate the power of the opening song (as simple and moving as anything in CAROUSEL) and the title number in a country in the midst of a world war.

"Lonely Room" is as psychologically complex as "Soliloquy". And the ballet in OKLAHOMA! actually advances the plot.

Just because OKLAHOMA! is more optimistic than CAROUSEL doesn't make it inferior or even less serious. In fact, a good case can be made that the former's theme of progress through democratic union is more serious and a lot less sentimental than "a slap that feels like a kiss".

Yes, I have read about all the servicemen who flocked to see Oklahoma and how much it meant to them and showed them what they were fighting for. I guess I could agree that the score wasn't inferior, it was just different for a different time. Full of cheerful and upbeat songs, from Curly's famous solo opening of the show with "Beautiful Mornin'" through the inspired comedy of Ado Annie and her two fellers, and "The Farmer and the Cowman" and of course the title tune.

My mother in the mid to late fifties played the R&H OBC albums constantly, along with "My Fair Lady" and a few others. As a six or seven year old I completely absorbed them. My two favorites were "The Carousel Waltz" and "Oklahoma." When it was time for "Oklahoma" I would grab this tin indoor watering can and beat wildly on the bottom of it more or less in time to the music. I guess this is why I developed a life long love affair with these classics and why I was so thrilled to see South Pacific at Lincoln Center.

Peace.

you'd have to be a moron to believe that any musical about a US Secretary of the Treasury could be conceived as a commercial venture. that's outrageous.