Delete — Page 2

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

#26

Art vs. Commercialism at the Tonys

Posted: 6/15/18 at 4:16pm

I am very intrigued by this thread, because it takes me back to the 2013 Tony Awards, where I feel like ALL of the Best Musical nominees were commercial pieces of theater (Matilda was probably the furthest from this, but it also had the added benefit of being a hit in London, so there's that.) I don't know why, but the past few seasons (and their respective Best Musical winners) have felt increasingly commercialized (save for maybe Once and Gentleman's Guide and Fun Home.) That's just my two cents, y'all!

Also, the La Cage vs. Sunday in the Park debate piques my interest, because both of those shows have very different interpretations of how we should view art. Whether it's a biographic yet fictional piece about a famous painting, or a fun, glitzy musical about a drag club in France, it's very much up in the air for those two shows!

#27

Art vs. Commercialism at the Tonys

Posted: 6/15/18 at 4:20pm

Dancingthrulife2 said: "HogansHero said: "But the most commercial show in Broadway history is Hamilton"

If by "commercial" you mean "profitable," The Lion King has made moremoney than any other show on Broadway."

Honestly, this is very true! Wicked also falls into this equation too...

#28

Art vs. Commercialism at the Tonys

Posted: 6/15/18 at 4:27pm

SonofRobbieJ said: "SONG AND DANCE was proffered as the Art against DROOD'scommercialism. Was it really ever on the rails?

The problem is, the theory doesn't hold up all that well. Some years, it seems that commercialism was highly valued over art (see: SPAMALOT). The last few years, it seems the opposite...with riskier fare being rewarded. It also doesn't really take into account that the award is for Best Production of a Musical. It also views some productions with hindsight. For example, PHANTOM doesn'tgetthe credit it deserves for the artistry of its production. LA CAGE was anything but a sure thing. It's a deeply personal work by out, gay writers at a time when that wasn't particularly commercial...especially with gay men dying by the thousands at that point. Viewing LA CAGE as commercial is fine today, I guess. The original post seems to posit that LA CAGE was created with an eye on great commercial success. That couldn't be farther from the truth given the times and the fact that Jerry Herman hadn't had a hit in well over a decade."

well no, but I viewed that as an analytical deficiency. It's when I started reading about "elites" that I began looking over my shoulder for the careening train.

#29

Art vs. Commercialism at the Tonys

Posted: 6/15/18 at 5:57pm

Someone in a Tree2 said: "I'm sure I'll get flack for this, but there is a simple way to distinguish the 2 categories of shows above that doesn't involve how much money the showmade (i.e. how commercial it is).

One show (BOOK OF MORMON, FROZEN, SOMETHING ROTTEN, MEAN GIRLS) caters to the lowest common denominatoraudience member.

The other (LIGHT IN THE PIAZZA, THE BAND'S VISIT, FUN HOME any Sondheim show) caters to an elite audience.

It helps that Ithink of myself as an elite audience member, but that's not tosay that I don't love some lowest common denominator shows as well, for instance HELLO DOLLY.

Of course, the miraculous shows like HAMILTON or THE LION KING are the ones that straddle both groups.

"

Something Rotten works on two levels - and one level requires the "elite" knowledge you seem to desire. You miss half of the show if you don't know Shakespeare or Musical Theatre history. That show did not appeal to the "lowest common denominator", in my opinion.

And as others have pointed out - Book Of Mormon certainly has its low brow moments, but it is very smart and sharp in its themes and story. And it was far from a guaranteed success. Indeed, I recall people questioning the decision to open on Broadway with no out of town tryout at all.

#30

Art vs. Commercialism at the Tonys

Posted: 6/15/18 at 8:28pm

I also think it's easy to forget just how revolutionary Lion King was at the time now that it's been running 20+ years and is the epitome of commercialism on Broadway. But at the time, it was something unlike anything Broadway had sign. So while I love Ragtime and I think it definitely has a better book and score, I don't think you can say Lion King winning that year was a case of commercialism triumphing over art.

#31

Art vs. Commercialism at the Tonys

Posted: 6/28/18 at 10:43pm

I don't think there is a "commercial vs. artsy" rivalry. Define artsy. Anything that involves design, fabrication, sewing, singing, dancing and acting is artsy. Just because something has done well in other medias, like a movie or tv show, doesn't mean it's not "artsy". It's all art. The people who put a show together and bring it to life are all artists.

#32

Art vs. Commercialism at the Tonys

Posted: 6/28/18 at 11:01pm

morphing from "art" to "arty" mucks things up. The latter is pejorative, whereas the former admits of more nuance than you are crediting.

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $70

Tickets From $106

Tickets From $159