Does Going to the Theater Too Much Blur Your Sense of Good and Bad?

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 1/20/07 at 1:00pm

It's hard for me to explain but I've seen so much in recent months that everything has begun to blend together. Nothing is really outstanding, everything is just mediocre. A show like Spring Awakening (which got universal raves and I've heard called a religious experience) didn't thrill me - it was very blah. Other shows that I've expected to be great have also fell into this category.

Is it that the current crop of shows are truly are mediocre at best (am I expecting too much for my $) or is it that I've seen so much that I can't tell what's good and bad? Is there such a thing as overdosing on theater? Has it happened to anyone else?

Maybe a break is in order...

[popular_elphie]

Posted: 1/20/07 at 1:15pm

I've definitely felt the same way - not recently, but over the summer. I feel it's an overdose. When you live in NYC and see shows very often, it just becomes another night at the theatre sometimes. I would go to shows at the beginning and think, "WOW! I love seeing shows. That was great." and then towards the end of the summer I would think, "Ehh, it was alright." When I went back to the city this past week, the things I then saw were great, and I got that feeling again.

Also, it's more of forming your own opinion. If you go in expecting a show to be absolutely great (Les Miz for me), you can be let down.

Taking a break may be the best thing. Or go visit shows you love and then go back and see new things.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/20/07 at 1:30pm

The only time I've experienced what I'd call an "overdose" was this past summer, when I really dove into the summer festivals and stuff like that, where the theater is -- with some exceptions -- overwhelmingly pretty bad, expectedly so. I saw several shows a week, and most of them had major, major problems, but were also works-in-progress. I was seeing most things for a job that required looking into works in development, but I felt like I was sort of bad-theatered out, so to speak, because almost everything I was seeing was a wreck and I wanted so badly to see something decent. There's a lot of value in that in terms of developing critical skills, because I learned a lot about how to pick out very specific problems, so I hardly necessarily view it as a bad thing. Seeing a lot of theater hasn't blurred my sense of good and bad; it's done the complete opposite, and it's made me much better at pinpointing, distilling, and expressing my opinions. You've got to have a baseline in order to develop a scale, and seeing a lot gives you one.

I also think that as I've gotten older and exposed myself to more theater, I've become let down more often. I don't, however, quite chalk it up to becoming jaded or seeing going out to a show as "just another night," because I truly think that going to the theater will always be a special experience for me, and something I love doing. There are still so many times that my stomach absolutely flutters with excitement. In other words, I don't think it's experiential, but a reaction to material. Over time, I've found the types of things that I really gravitate toward, and I've seen things that have really blown my mind (a degree of "amazing" beyond just being good theater). Once you've had experiences like that, isn't it so much easier to be disappointed, or to find other things just mediocre? I think even if you're not consciously expecting something to be as great as one of those sorts of experiences, you do naturally hope it will be. And when it's not, it just falls into the conglomeration of mediocrity, which is going to be most things if you've experienced things truly outstanding. I can see how that would be discouraging, if you're feeling consistent disappointment. I don't think it's that the current crop is truly mediocre, really, but that as you see more, you have a more finely chiseled sense of good and bad; you've probably just become more critical by exposure.

I don't know if that makes sense, but it's my pocket change, for whatever it's worth.

Updated On: 1/20/07 at 01:30 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 1/20/07 at 1:34pm

Actually, I think it's seeing a lot of theater that gives you proper perspective. Most shows are only "okay", a mix of good and bad. When something manages to stand out to me even after I've seen 10 shows in the past 2 weeks, I know it's really good.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 1/20/07 at 1:39pm

Interesting thoughts, Emcee.

[Guillermo Ugarte]

Posted: 1/20/07 at 1:45pm

Art is subjective. Whether the critics or the audience among whom you view the show likes the show or does not like the show should not matter.

If you value good art and performances you should be able to appreciate it, no matter how many shows you have seen. However, if you eat a good steak every day of the week there is no doubt you will forget how good it can be, though you may still be able to judge if it is badly prepared.

Try taking a break if you think have overdosed. But remember there is no substitute for good taste.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/20/07 at 1:47pm

Seeing lots of theatre sharpens my sense of good and bad.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/20/07 at 1:53pm

Whether the critics or the audience among whom you view the show likes the show or does not like the show should not matter.

I think that's oversimplification, though. This is probably somewhat a personal thing, and you're right to say that what other people think shouldn't matter in your development of your own opinions, but what about when you measure yours up to others and compare them? Yankeefan used Spring Awakening as an example, and he and I had similar feelings on it, so I'm going to go with that. The critics adored it, for the most part. It's fast gaining a really intense fanbase, and people are treating it like some sort of religious experience, as Yank said. I wouldn't say I felt it mediocre, I rather think it's quite good, but I fail to see in it a lot of what other people do that to them pushes it into "brilliant" territory. Spelling Bee is another similar case for me. I read the reviews and agreed with points -- yes, it's funny, and so forth, but I wasn't falling over myself for it. In those kinds of situations, looking at how I felt up against how a lot of other people feel is confusing and frustrating, as causes me to question whether I didn't miss something. I think that's all part of the process of really nailing down your subjective notions, but I certainly think other opinions "matter" in one way or another, if not necessarily in determining what you see or impacting what you decide you think. I can't really see just having my thoughts and letting them live in their own little bubble without comparing them to what others think.

Updated On: 1/20/07 at 01:53 PM

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 1/20/07 at 1:58pm

I had an experience of theatregoing in 1961 that sort of fits your theory of bluring the senses when seeing too much theatre in a short period of time. As I said on another thread recently, I saw CARNIVAL at the matinee, and then saw CAMELOT with Richard Burton, Julie Andrews, and Robert Goulet that night. For me, CAMELOT paled in comparison to the magical, "perfect" musical CARNIVAL. Was part of my disappointment of CAMELOT due to having seen CARNIVAL the same day or was CAMELOT just terribly inferior to CARNIVAL, despite its wonderful score? I think it was a little bit of both.

Updated On: 1/20/07 at 01:58 PM

[GYPSY1527]

Posted: 1/20/07 at 2:11pm

I don't know if going to the theater too much blurs your sense of good or bad but it certainly for me, allows the comparison to occure between really amazing shows and medicore. I'm more in tune to what I would consider "brillant" than before because the selection was not there. For me, this season so far has been slightly underwhelming and I haven't found a show that has blown me away yet (aside from Spring Awakening which I consider great but not spectactular). In my experience, I have always been able to find a show during a season that captures my heart and mind....I am still waiting this season.

[Guillermo Ugarte]

Posted: 1/20/07 at 2:11pm

If you do not have the courage to disagree with the masses when they take a position then your politics, your taste in theater and your love life will suffer.

You can listen to others and have an intelligent dialogue but you truly love a piece or think something has holes in it, you should have the courage of your convictions.

Regardless of what I think of a show if someone can constructively tell me why they liked it or did not like it I can respect their opinion. It is the opinions of those who have put no thought behind their words that get under my skin.

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 1/20/07 at 2:13pm

I agree with a lot of what people are saying--you have a better sense of what's good and what's bad, and you start realizing everything has flaws and such. I remember a couple years ago if I went to a show a couple of times a year, I thought everything was great (okay, except maybe Flower Drum Song...) Now for the most part, in terms of good and bad, I'm much better at telling the difference and not just thinking everything is good.

The difference for me is that I separate something that is enjoyable from something great. Tarzan is a good example for me. I know it's not a good show. It has many flaws, many things that don't work. But I love it! See, like Emcee, no matter how many times...even if it's twice, 3 times a week on occasion, going to a show is never something I view as "just another night." There's still hardly anything more exciting to me than the lights dimming and the opening notes of the overture. Before every show, I still think to myself omg yay I'm about to see a live show! Even if I've seen the same show 26 times. It's that special to me. (Please don't take it as I'm saying everyone should think this way, or that everyone should separate good from enjoyable...sometimes I wish people would realize the difference more, but it's certainly understandable and great for someone to only enjoy shows they deem as good.)

Or like Wicked. I know it's not the best show ever. I know it's flawed. Still, there's not too many other shows I'd rather see.

I think the truth is people who don't go to theater much have an escewed sense of good and bad, to be honest. To them, everything is great. And I can understand one not wanting to give up that viewpoint. So you just have to decide--do you still enjoy the mediocrity? And if not so much, then maybe you should take a break to bring back your enjoyment level.

Umm, just had another thought too...again, blurring something you can enjoy vs. mediocrity, a lot of it is perception. I remember when I saw Sweet Charity with Charlotte. I had just started seeing shows a lot and understanding flaws and not great things. As the show went on, I kept thinking how this is bad and that is bad, etc, until I just kind of smacked myself and was like stop. It's not the best. You can still enjoy it. I turned off my critical mind, and really enjoyed it.

Again, I'm not saying my way or any way is better, just sharing my own way. I mean I admire those that have high standards, it's our hope for keeping the quality of theatre higher.

Finally, with going to theatre a lot, the other thing I notice is I have a bigger appreciation for originality. Makes sense, obviously. We all probably do that to an extent...unless something original is awful.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 1/20/07 at 2:13pm

Valid points, all.

I agree with you somewhat, Munk, that it sharpens good and bad, but, as Guillermo Ugarte said, you eventually wind up forgetting how good or bad something can be.

And Emcee, as in many cases, we seem to think alike. I have left many shows thinking "well, everyone liked it, what did I miss?" It still doesn't change my opinion on the show, I just spend more time thinking about it.

Going to the theater often has made me differentiate good and bad...but my problem now is that very little lives up to the standards that I expect. Of the many shows I've seen in recent months, 5 or so stand out - Grey Gardens, Mary Poppins, Coast of Utopia, The Scene, and The Clean House.

Updated On: 1/20/07 at 02:13 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 1/20/07 at 2:28pm

Stepping away from the fact that this has somehow become a lecture on unrelated aspects of life such as politics and love and how to conduct oneself within them, apparently, I think it's pretty obvious to readers of this board even without knowing me in person that I have the courage to disagree with others, with the masses and to stand pointedly behind my convictions. Therefore, I don't think being frustrated by feeling as though you've missed the boat means lacking convictions to stand behind what you think, or being someone whose opinions are easily wavered. One doesn't have to imply the other: wondering "what did I miss?" doesn't mean that if told, so to speak, you'll change your opinion. To me, it simply means that you're interested in what other people think, not that you're somehow insecure about your convictions. I'm not sure why you seem to have misconstrued what I said as such, but I didn't intend it to be taken that way, especially speaking to my own personal experiences.

You can listen to others and have an intelligent dialogue but you truly love a piece or think something has holes in it, you should have the courage of your convictions.

That's exactly what I'm getting at -- having intelligent discussion often comes from opposing opinions. For example, I've had a lot of great discussions about Spring Awakening, and why I feel the way I do about it, but that doesn't mean I'm giving in by listening to others, nor does listening to others mean going back on your convictions. That's how I meant for my previous post to be taken, but I suppose that since I only address the "I'm frustrated" part, assuming that the fact that I'm very convicted about my opinions on theater was implicit, I left everything else open to interpretation. I didn't mean for saying that I think other opinions matter to mean that I let them impact me, but rather the opposite: discussing a show with someone whose opinion differs from yours and having to stand behind your own opinion helps to solidify it and dig deeply into it by getting you to look at why you feel that way, etc.

Updated On: 1/20/07 at 02:28 PM

[shesamarshmallow]

Posted: 1/20/07 at 2:43pm

When going to the theater was a special occassion, I thought everything was great. Now that I go at least once a week, the novelty has worn off and I judge the shows more than the rush I get when I go.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/20/07 at 3:08pm

I don't know. Most critics see dozens and dozens of shows per year, but they still manage to rave on occasion when something they think is particularly good comes along -- Spring Awakening, Coast of Utopia, Clean House, The Voysey Inheritance......

I myself saw over 100 shows last year, but still managed to be thoroughly blown away by about a dozen or so of those shows.

I've been going to theatre for decades and the fact is that that sort of brilliant, transcendent experience that you're always hoping for only comes along every once in a while. That's just the nature of it. It's not easy to do truly great work -- not many people are even capable of great work and just because someone has done great work in the past, doesn't mean that that sort of inspiration and achievement will happen very single time.

The fact is that MOST of anything, be it theatre, film, television, music, art, dance, etc.... is "average." And a lot of it is mediocre. "Genius" is the exception, not the rule and that has always been the case. And I cherish the memories of those brilliant nights of entertainment that I've been privileged enough to have over the years (and do my best to simply forget the misfires).

Now, does having seen Bennett and Fosse and Tune and Prince and Champion and Robbins make me have a higher standard for "greatness" in evaluating a new musical theatre piece? Perhaps, but even if a show doesn't reach the level of invention that some of those old masters were able to create doesn't mean I can't find something to enjoy in it (heck, I would be truly miserable if I actually expected every new show to reach the heights that Bennett, Prince, et al were able to reach in their prime). Does it mean sometimes I can get impatient sitting through the sorts of bland, uninspiring, perfunctory, uninteresting work that too often gets passed off as "professional" theatre these days? Sure, but that's the nature of the beast.

If you truly love theatre, then you keep going to shows and you keep hoping to have that special experience once again. More often than not, it's not going to happen, but you can bet that soon enough something is going to come along and just blow you out of your seat and remind you why you go to theatre in the first place.

[aspiringactress]

Posted: 1/20/07 at 3:12pm

I've found, as someone who has grown up in New York, and always seen a lot of theatre, that there are periods of mediocrity...but they really are periods of mediocrity. The good and bad are both illuminated. When I saw the production of Woyzeck at the St Ann's Warehouse, for example, I was stunned. I had seen a lot (maybe 3 or 4 shows) that week, but I knew how incredible the thing was that was happening in front of me. It is still entirely posible to get really excited about something special to you, whether it be because it features an actor you love, or is the work of a favorite writer or director, etc.

One example is that though I had seen tons of theatre this summer (due to more time), some October, I was extremely excited for Company, and got that special occasion, excitement-nervousness-anticipation.

I think that as long as you do not allow yourself to be lazy as an audince member, then the more you see, the more perceptive you become.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 1/20/07 at 3:17pm

I thought this was going to be about how theater clouds your moral judgment.

[Weez]

Posted: 1/20/07 at 3:42pm

I don't think it does so much. Granted, I've not been to the theatre a billion zillion times, but I still get all quivery and excited. And you can totally tell a good production from a bad one academically, even if you're desensitised enough to not get the quivers anymore. I'm with Plum, really; there's a lot of mediocrity in any entertainment medium, but you'll always respond to a really good piece.

[Theatreboy33]

Posted: 1/20/07 at 7:29pm

No, but going to one show over and over and over again (ala Rentheads or the Wicked megafans) does. I think a healthy balance of many shows in fact sharpens the theatrical taste.

[Horton]

Posted: 1/20/07 at 8:18pm

I have not seen somthing truly great on broadway for a while.

[wexy]

Posted: 1/20/07 at 8:22pm

There are deja vu moments when I go often and wonder "Have I seen this?" Doesn't stop me from going I have had that melting together feeling.

Updated On: 1/20/07 at 08:22 PM

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 1/20/07 at 8:22pm

I think living in NY it becomes less of an event, more of just seeing a show. With that, the excitement can be lost sometimes but I've yet to lose the thrill of the lights dimming and the show starting.

[Guillermo Ugarte]

Posted: 1/21/07 at 2:45pm

Luv, it was unclear that you were talking about intelligent discourse. It seemed you were saying that seeing a lot of theater can blur your ability to tell the difference between what you think is good and what you think is bad.

Another insight I might offer into the process of discussing art...any kind of art...is that I find that sometimes when I really start to dig into the discussion with others who saw the painting, musical, sculpture or movie, I begin to talk about details and impressions I got that I wasn't even aware I noticed until I started talking about why I felt a certain way about the piece. I find that kind of discussion very intriguing and exciting. If we care enough about our art to talk about it and to argue, agree and rant, that is a good thing.

[keen on kean]

Posted: 1/21/07 at 2:47pm

I love the theater and nothing will stop me from going as often as I can but I have found that the older I get (ahem...) the rarer the occasions when I walk out of the theater (or opera or ballet) and my feet don't touch the ground. Perhaps my standards are higher, perhaps I am jaded by the number of times I have seen something. But when you do have a fabulous experience, it is truly memorable. So my expectations are lower, but it is still worth looking for that magic. I also recognize that there are lulls in any of the performing arts when a number of major talents don't come along. Maybe we are in one of those lulls now?