Cher: The Musical- Page 2

[Mr. Nowack]

Posted: 9/5/16 at 1:47pm

 

[gypsy101]

Posted: 9/6/16 at 1:28pm

Patti LuPone FANatic said: "Gypsy.... I was referring to her 70's television shows that I used to watch back then."

Ah! They probably just filmed the real Cher multiple times.

[Oak2]

Posted: 9/6/16 at 1:49pm

Even though I don't personally have much of an interest in viewing jukebox musicals (with some exceptions), and I'm not a big fan of Cher either, I hope this does well and will be glad to see it do so, because I love it whenever another jukebox comes on, gets big, and makes the elitists fume and cry. Anything that's a victory for the masses and tourists over the elitists is a good thing in my book.

[MichelleCraig]

Posted: 9/6/16 at 6:26pm

This could be so much more than a jukebox musical, but why bother when the jukebox route could clean-up...

[After Eight]

Posted: 9/7/16 at 12:41am

The simple truth is, whether it's a smash jukebox musical like Mamma Mia, or a lesser light, such as Baby, It's You, they're a million times more enjoyable than the insufferable collection of elitists' pets inflicted upon us through the years.... Sunday in the Park With George, Passion, Falsettos, Fun Home, this season's darling to end all darlings ...  The list is long.

Updated On: 9/7/16 at 12:41 AM

[Oak2]

Posted: 9/7/16 at 10:30am

While I appreciate your sentiment, After Eight, I disagree with the direction you took it, as by my definition your views are also elitist, since you are implying that those musicals such as Sunday and Fun Home are trash, and I've seen you in other threads decry such shows as filth that don't "deserve" to be on Broadway. I enjoy all levels of musical, and believe it's impossible for a musical to be "trash" - if even one person finds it enjoyable, then it's a valid piece. It's a subjective medium so everything has its audience, and I believe the ultimate goal for Broadway should be to have such a variety of works, intellectual to sentimental, mass-appeal to niche appeal, to the point that you can take any random person of any manner of personality and taste and be able to find at least one show that they can enjoy.

Elitism, to me, is believing that any one specific form of musical should be the only kind, and to decry the fans of that. The only reason I expressed my joy for jukeboxes to succeed at the expense of elitists is because from what I have seen, the most vocal and vitriolic of elitists in theatre do tend to be those who think that only "intellectual" theatre or that which they view as "art" belong in the theatre, and act like the masses or people who like more sentimental or entertainment-focused art are of a lower type of fan. That attitude bothers me, but at the same time I also take umbrage to people who go to the other extreme and decry anything intellectual as trash. Really, anyone who calls something trash as if its a fact is an elitist in my book.

In a perfect world, every musical and play would find great success in being able to successfully get its target audience into the seats, so that everyone who would enjoy it will do so, and those that wouldn't are able to realize beforehand that it's not for them and instead get what they enjoy, so that everyone is happy and all works become successful, and that is thus what I expect. And as for anyone who thinks that their opinions of what is "good" entertainment or art is the end-all/be-all, I do take joy in them getting angry at something they dont' like being popular, because it means they're unable to accept other people's tastes, and if they're going to be a gatekeeper, they deserve to have their wishes shattered. So while I take joy in elitists raging at Jukebox musicals finding their audience and getting huge because they're such a vocal people who seem to think Jukeboxes "don't deserve" to be on Broadway (as has been said by some people in this very thread), I also take joy when people like you fume and cry at works like Fun Home being successful. Every work deserves to find its audience and be successful, and every theatregoer deserves to have at least one work existing on Broadway that suits their tastes. To have any other stance is elitist and evil in my mind, so the evil deserve to be unhappy and those works being successful anyway.

Also to clarify: I am not expressing or implying that it's wrong to dislike a work. I just feel it's wrong to have stance of "If I don't like it, nobody should and this shouldn't exist, and people who do like this are wrong and are somehow harming me and the medium". Especially when those people end up blurring the line between opinion and fact.
 

Updated On: 9/7/16 at 10:30 AM

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 9/7/16 at 10:54am

Interesting take, Oak2. I like a lot of what you said, but I disagree with the notion that some shows aren't "junk" or "trash," when IMO it should be that no genre is "junk" or "trash," but of course some individual entries in each genre will not be any good.

I like having variety on Broadway (or on the theater scene at any level). There should be room for both jukebox musicals and "intellectual" musical dramas; frothy entertainments and serious plays. Give everyone something to enjoy, but regardless of the genre each show should still be well-constructed, well-directed, well-performed, etc. Jersey Boys is well-conceived and we can cheer it on. Hot Feet was not and can counted in the trash column. It's not trash because it's a jukebox musical, but rather because it was shoddily put together and executed. By all means give everyone the genre of their choice, but demand only the best in each genre, especially at the Broadway level for Broadway prices.

[After Eight]

Posted: 9/7/16 at 11:01am

"In a perfect world, every musical and play would find great success in being able to successfully get its target audience into the seats,"

Actually, in a perfect world, good musicals would succeed, and bad ones would fail. And why would one want bad musicals to succeed, anyway? And expanding upon that, why should one want not only bad, but also pernicious and offensive works to succeed? It has nothing to do with a work's  being "intellectual" or otherwise. It has everything to do with a work's being bad, pernicious, offensive, boring, pretentious, condescending, superior, etc, etc. I have no desire to see those works presented, much less succeed, and nor should I. Nor should anyone, for that matter.

 

"Every work deserves to find its audience and be successful,"

Nonsense. Not bad ones.

"and every theatregoer deserves to have at least one work existing on Broadway that suits their tastes."

More nonsense.

"To have any other stance is elitist and evil in my mind."

You need to work on your mind.
 

[Oak2]

Posted: 9/7/16 at 11:04am

@WhizzerMarvin: I agree with you, and you had a fair point in that yes, some things could objectively be called trash I suppose, but those elements you stated have to do with production value. I think something like that might be a little more objective - for example, if someone is consistently singing off-key, that's going to sound bad. That is a rare objective element.

However, there will even then be people who may enjoy things that are objectively of low quality. To be fair, a lot of it is because they find it goes into "so bad it's good" or camp quality, which is certainly an acceptable reason to enjoy something. Or a guilty pleasure, where one can acknowledge the faults of a work while still enjoying it. I suppose I should re-tailor my statement to more say that while one could call such a work as trash by standard, I disagree with disparaging people who may actually still like that kind of work.

And yes, I do agree with you that just because some people may have lower standards on the level of execution and performance, doesn't mean that creators shouldn't strive for the heights regardless. But at the core of things, art and entertainment are very much a subjective medium, so it bothers me when people try to treat it as otherwise and believe that their own opinions for what constitutes a "good" or "bad" work are the end-all/be-all rather than their own personal taste.
 

Updated On: 9/7/16 at 11:04 AM

[Oak2]

Posted: 9/7/16 at 1:09pm

@After Eight, as I didn't see your response - You're missing the point. You said that "not bad ones" deserve to be on Broadway, but again, the issue is that there are going to be so many people with different opinions, that no show will be truly bad. What you consider awful will be genius to another, and vice-versa. Both are valid. By trying to enforce that only shows you like belong on Broadway, you are elitist. And no, I do not need to work on my mind - it's in a fine place that allows me to be happy with most things.

"Actually, in a perfect world, good musicals would succeed, and bad ones would fail. And why would one want bad musicals to succeed, anyway? And expanding upon that, why should one want not only bad, but also pernicious and offensive works to succeed? It has nothing to do with a work's  being "intellectual" or otherwise. It has everything to do with a work's being bad, pernicious, offensive, boring, pretentious, condescending, superior, etc, etc. I have no desire to see those works presented, much less succeed, and nor should I. Nor should anyone, for that matter. "

whether it's "offensive, condescending," etc. is your opinion. Many people do not consider works you view as that to be of that nature, or conversely, they may actually LIKE works of those nature. And they have the right to. Saying what people SHOULD want to see? You're outright expressing that everyone should have the same opinions and tastes as you, which is beyond evil. You're a fascist.

You may have no desire to see them presented, but there is an audience for them, and thus they deserve to exist. You are not harmed by them existing - them existing is only a good thing as it gives enjoyment to those who like it, while those who don't like it don't have to go. Thinking that they shouldn't have a right to see it because you personally don't like it is pure evil. The fact that you believe they shouldn't exit just because you don't like them marks you as evil. You're just as elitist as those you decry. Just as the elitists deserve to be unhappy when jukeboxes fail, I will enjoy your tears with stuff like Fun Home and Hamilton, all great works, succeed because you can't handle the fact that other people have different opinions and that those are valid. If anything, that tells me YOU are the one who needs to "work on your mind." The inability to accept other people's views and tastes of subjective matter as valid is the hallmark of the mind of a child or infant.

Updated On: 9/7/16 at 01:09 PM

[Whateverjsays]

Posted: 11/17/16 at 9:10am

Just announced there's a staged reading of this January 2-14. Directed by Jason Moore and book by Rick Elice. It sounds like it has potential to be good! 

[lotiloti]

Posted: 11/17/16 at 2:33pm

They could call it 'the Lipsync' musical !

[InnerMonologue]

Posted: 11/17/16 at 4:49pm

Updated On: 11/17/16 at 04:49 PM

[bjh2114]

Posted: 11/17/16 at 5:24pm

lotiloti said: "They could call it 'the Lipsync' musical !"

Oh please, it's not a musical about Britney Spears.

[BroadwayLuv2]

Posted: 12/30/16 at 10:50am

Staged readings of the new Cher Musical are scheduled for January.  Are these readings typically closed?  Is there anyway the general public can get tickets?  Would love to attend. 

[Ado Annie D'Ysquith]

Posted: 12/30/16 at 12:53pm

Cher was literally my childhood hero, man. And I actually like the idea of her being played by three actresses, though I'm not entirely sure why...

I'll be watching this from the corner of my eye!

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 12/30/16 at 1:07pm

Aaaaah to revisit the board for one of the last times only to see Oak2 shutting down AfterEight makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. 

 

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 12/30/16 at 8:51pm

Yes, taste is subjective to some extent, but the fact that opinions vary does not prove that all opinions are equally valid. Flat Earthers and climate-change deniers can opine all they want; they will still be dead wrong.

Yes, I realize After Eight muddies the matter with his unsupported pronouncements of what is "good" and "bad". But that is just poor criticism; it doesn't prove that good criticism is impossible.

Objective criteria can and have been established for musical theater, beginning at least 2500 years ago. (Read anything that quotes Sondheim; I don't always agree with him, but he is very clear as to what he thinks is worthwhile and what he finds problematic.) Ideally, the criteria will suit the piece in question. What is the point of judging HAIRSPRAY by the standards one would apply to PORGY AND BESS? Obviously, the two works aim for quite different results.

For the record, the reason some of us show disdain for jukebox musicals is not because we feel "superior" nor because we disdain shows with popular appeal. Jukebox musicals are alarming because they require so little of the audience; the songs (and often the story) are not only known, but already beloved when the spectator enters the building. That requires far less effort than enjoying a new musical with songs one is hearing for the first time.

Enjoying music on first hearing is a learned skill. (I'm amazed how much better I am at it than I was 50 years ago.) Put another way, as Sondheim has said many times, "hummability" is a function of repetition. The audience at JERSEY BOYS has heard the songs quite literally hundreds of times. I'm not suggesting we boycott jukebox shows, but having a good time at JERSEY BOYS does nothing to prepare one to appreciate PASSION or FUN HOME.

And for those of us who love the musical play, it's a shame when most of the audience is attending jukebox musicals and long-running revivals.

[PatrickDC]

Posted: 12/30/16 at 9:10pm

Too sad that Bea and Estelle  are gone. They would nail the roles of Sonny and Cher. 

[After Eight]

Posted: 12/31/16 at 9:24am

"it's a shame when most of the audience is attending jukebox musicals and long-running revivals."

 

It's not at all a shame.

In fact, these audiences are to be commended for supporting things that actually give theatregoers pleasure, as opposed to the crap that makes you want to flee the premises in agony ---- the loathsome fare that the elitist "we'll tell you what's good for you" agenda crowd forces down our throats on a regular basis. Pleasure --- not pain, lectures, or reprimands --- is what the theatre is supposed to provide.

So bravo to those who support theatre as it should be. May they prosper and continue. And may theatre --- that is, GOOD theatre --- do so as well.

And a Happy New Year to all.

Updated On: 12/31/16 at 09:24 AM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 12/31/16 at 7:34pm

"Pleasure --- not pain, lectures, or reprimands --- is what the theatre is supposed to provide."

 

Says who? Certainly not Aristotle, Horace, Corneille, Zola, Brecht or Grotowski.

And who says learning isn't pleasurable? Who says having one's preconceptions challenged must be a chore?

Your use of the word "pleasure" is no more meaningful than your use of "good" and "bad". 

But you seem to hint that what you want is an evening that leaves you feeling "happy" rather than enlightened or provoked. And that's fine. For you. But another performance medium, the TV sitcom, has largely taken that role in American culture. (This is by no means to disparage TV sitcoms, even if we're in a bit of a slump at the moment. But I have no desire to pay Broadway prices to see what I can watch for free at home.)

Updated On: 12/31/16 at 07:34 PM

[kofler22]

Posted: 1/1/17 at 6:58am

Chad Michaels as Cher!!!

[LaneBryant]

Posted: 1/1/17 at 2:10pm

Staged readings of the new Cher Musical are scheduled for January.  Are these readings typically closed?  Is there anyway the general public can get tickets?  Would love to attend.

Not at all. It's all the way closed. Creatives, Casting, Producers, and selected friends only. 

[SweetLips]

Posted: 1/1/17 at 2:36pm

This I would love to see--the costumes/staging should be quite spectacular, without Chers' voice-never liked.

A bit like Kylie-the show and songs are the attraction-not the voice.

[Tag]

Posted: 1/3/17 at 12:39am

Has anyone read the character breakdown for the reading this month?  It reads like a trainwreck.

"In the spotlight, she thrives. Out of it, she pines for the minutiae of ordinary life – going to the movies, shopping with friends, being a mommy, making music."

Riveting.