Finian's Rainbow - Wow, that was terrible.- Page 2

[dramamama611]

Posted: 1/9/10 at 2:12am

1. I didn't say you didn't "know jack". All I'm saying is the NUMBER of shows you have seen doesn't guarantee that you know "jack" either.. (YOU brought the number of shows you've seen in 18 months as proof of your expertise.)

2. I think reviewing their magnet -- as if it was PART of the show, that was an optional purchase on your part, is just silly. If you didn't like it, WHY would you want it?

And note: I didn't say anything about your opinion...you can think what you like.

Updated On: 1/9/10 at 02:12 AM

[Eris0303]

Posted: 1/9/10 at 2:15am

I've been watching musicals and seeing shows for 30 years and I don't consider myself to be an expert in any way shape or form.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/9/10 at 7:28am

"The Wild Party" had a plot?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/9/10 at 8:10am

I nominate this thread for "Dumbest Incorrect Assertion of the Year" (possibly "Dumbest Incorrect Assertion of the Decade"):

"Musicals of the 1940s and 1950s had no plot."

I also nominate this threads for Silliest Reason to Dislike a Show EVER:

"This show had the WORST magnets on Broadway!"

[D2]

Posted: 1/9/10 at 8:20am

I second PJ's nomination.

All in favor?

[Fanb]

Posted: 1/9/10 at 9:09am

Add CABARET to the list of musicals with great books.

[matineeidol2013]

Posted: 1/9/10 at 9:20am

AYE

[TonyVincent]

Posted: 1/9/10 at 10:00am

You really must stop. How old are you? Few/no musicals have deep plots? I may plotz from hearing that. What IS a deep plot anyway - where the Cohens are buried? Here's the thing: The King and I, Carousel, South Pacific, West Side Story, The Music Man, Gypsy, Showboat, well, do I need to continue?

I did think that Finian's rainbow was earlier than the late 40s, so I stand corrected on that. That said, a majority of the musicals you mention were produced years after Finian's. I haven't had the opportunity to see Showboat; though I know that was a major step in plot-driven musicals, it certainly didn't change the standard overnight. And that's why I said "few," because I know there are exceptions, and I know the kind people here would point out every one they felt made the cut. Perhaps I should have omitted "no." Would it make you more comfortable if I said "Fewer shows from the 1940s and before relied on plot-driven themes than shows of later eras?"

All wonderfully written and plotted and far superior to any show of the last decade.

I assume you also walked uphill both ways through the snow to see the show those days? Come on, you get pissed at me for using absolutes and treating opinion as fact, then you make an even stronger statement. I dislike the pedestrian, over-produced modern drivel as much as the next snob on here, but that doesn't mean there aren't complex productions out there. Those shows are all well crafted, but I still wouldn't call many of them "deep."


Updated On: 1/9/10 at 10:00 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 1/9/10 at 10:06am

Not really. Unsubstantiated blanketed comments made as FACT are torn apart. Opinions that are well stated and communicated are usually respected. And talked about. THAT'S what a discussion board is for. To discuss. If we all agreed, there would be no discussion.

[TonyVincent]

Posted: 1/9/10 at 10:16am

OK, well I guess my curtness on my original response was construed as assumed certainty. I'll try to be more clear next time.

In my opinion, despite some musicals of the 40s and before having complete, well-constructed plots (which I still insist Finian's is not), many can be taken for their face value and central theme. I find that later musicals with the most polished plotlines often have more complexity and depth that cannot often be taken as face value.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/9/10 at 10:22am

TonyVincent---you're still burying yourself. Have you ever actually SEEN a show written in the 1930s or 1920s. Unless they were mere revues, they ALL had plots. Some of them very clever, some simple or humorous. But the hit shows of that era all had well-formed, sometimes even complex plots.

The big revelation in theatre was integrating the songs with these plots, rather than stopping the action to sing a generic song and then continuing on with the story.

But plots? Musical comedies (except revues) of the '20s, '30s, and '40s ALL had plots.

[TonyVincent]

Posted: 1/9/10 at 10:25am

I am happy to be educated on a facet of theater I have not yet experienced. Would you recommend one that you find particularly complex? Preferably one I can somehow listen to or experience, not just read about?

The big revelation in theatre was integrating the songs with these plots, rather than stopping the action to sing a generic song and then continuing on with the story.

I'm thinking something like Singing in the Rain here, right? (Or maybe Jersey Boys, hah!)

I wouldn't consider plays with generic songs thrown in as "musicals" then, or at least not "plot-driven" ones. Difference in terminology, I guess. My education is not formal, so if there is a more technical way to express the difference, tell me.

Updated On: 1/9/10 at 10:25 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/9/10 at 10:37am

First of all, Singin' in the Rain" is a film musical, written directly for the screen. It could even be called a "jukebox musical," because the writers (Comden and Green) who were working for MGM took a bunch of old 1920s movie songs written by Arthur Freed and wrote a new (brilliant) plot around them. But it's strictly a movie musical, only later adapted for the stage.

Part of the problem here is that you said you want to LISTEN to old recordings of these '20s and '30s musicals to experience the clever or complex plots. But the songs weren't often integrated with the stories, so you would actually have to read the scripts (aka "books") for these musicals to experience their plots.

And start with the biggies by Rodgers & Hart, George & Ira Gershwin, Cole Porter, etc.

[TonyVincent]

Posted: 1/9/10 at 11:18am

Thanks for the response. Yes, I actually knew that about SITR. I know the analogy wasn't perfect, I was just going for the comedic plot/somewhat unrelated song balance in an example most people know. I actually love SITR for its legendary performances, though I tend to dislike the genre as a whole.

I also realized as I was writing that it would be hard to capture that essence through a recording.

I have seen Kiss Me Kate and Anything Goes, which I guess would be more appropriate examples. Also Pal Joey, though that seems a bit more plot-driven. I just don't find the plots engaging and the unrelated songs tend to bore me whether it be jukebox musicals or traditional shows of the 30s/40s. I guess I just don't appreciate that type of theater, as the most exciting part of musicals to me are the way songs develop characters and add another layer to the plot. I guess I should have just said many early musicals have "plots I don't find engaging" as opposed to "no plot" and left it at that, and could have avoided the whole mess :).
Updated On: 1/9/10 at 11:18 AM

[B3TA07]

Posted: 1/9/10 at 12:05pm

People really buy those magnets, huh?

[bk]

Posted: 1/9/10 at 12:45pm

Tony Vincent, did you edit your original post to remove the reference to 40s/50s? I believe you did - not cricket. That is why I did not list any shows from the 60s and 70s. And you forgot to say how old you were. I'm won't put you down for your age, but it does help to know your frame of reference.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/9/10 at 1:18pm

I don't think age has much to do with it, although you bring it up a lot, bk. There are a few "kids" on these theatre forums who know a lot about theatre history, even if they weren't sitting in Row E Center for opening night of One Touch of Venus.

TonyVinicent made a sweeping (and inaccurate) statement that set people off here. But ignorance is the culprit. He could have been 50 and said something like that. I'm not discounting his comments, but I'm giving him a pass for backtracking and at least admitting he doesn't "get" it but would like to learn. So many here don't even bother.

The approach may have been annoying ... but isn't discussing shows, sharing opinions, experiences, and learning new things about theatre and Broadway (as I myself have done many times) the best part of boards like these?

And with all the knowledge and experience you have, why not help a "kid" out who wants to learn, instead of writing him off as "too young to get it." Isn't that a waste of what you have to offer here anyway?

Updated On: 1/9/10 at 01:18 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/9/10 at 1:22pm

Tony--do you find the plots of Show Boat (1927) or Porgy and Bess (1935) engaging?

How about the plots of Oklahoma, Carousel and The King and I?

Or musicals from the 30s and 40s with plots based on Shakespeare, like The Boy from Syracuse or Kiss Me, Kate?

Are any of those plots engaging to you?

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/9/10 at 1:32pm

And the comedies were/are pretty engaging too. I don't think every "engaging" plot has to be heavy drama or epic in scale.

For argument's sake, this may be one of the current reasons "Ragtime" isn't engaging the masses. The story is almost too big for the people in it. It's "relevance" is eclipsing its characters, perhaps. (Just a theory, even though I love the show myself.)

I think some of the '30s musical comedies are delightful and a lot of fun. Call that "engaging," if you want.

It could also be that you just haven't seen very good productions of these musicals. Some of the current revivals in New York are mere shadows of the original vibrant productions. They don't even hint at what's possible with the material.

Updated On: 1/9/10 at 01:32 PM

[WishingOnlyWounds2]

Posted: 1/9/10 at 1:41pm

I wasn't a fan of the show either and as a huge Cheyenne fan I really wanted to like it, I just didn't. I held back on writing a review when I saw it...

[Kad]

Posted: 1/9/10 at 3:48pm

I saw the production last night and thought it was great. An extremely charming production with great performances all around. It's very much from the golden age of musicals, and I kind of wish we saw a return to that- they're all joyous and fantastical and completely embrace the musical form. Their plots are no less quality than those of modern musicals- they just don't wear it on their sleeves as much.

I was also surprised with how audacious the show was, even by modern standards and particularly for its time.

[bk]

Posted: 1/9/10 at 3:50pm

best12bars, I'm not writing off anyone. But when someone who is obviously a young teen writes as if they have vast knowledge about theater history and make sweeping generalizations, well, I think age as a frame of reference at least let's readers of posts know what's what. I bring up age "a lot" in that regard because it needs to be brought up. When I was fourteen I would never have had the chutzpah to come on a board like this (and thank the Lord there weren't any) and post things like I read here, as if my fourteen years made me some sort of expert. Yes, after the fact, TonyVincent, who I'm more than sure is a very nice fellow, said he was willing to learn. That's great. I love most young people, at least the ones who are not having oral sex in the seventh grade (see the 13 thread), especially musical theater fans. I just have a problem where, under the guise of anonymity, they come posting as if they had great theater knowledge and I'm sorry, that t'ain't so. That said, there are many, MANY older people who are complete twits when it comes to theater history, so you're right there.

[MusicSnob1]

Posted: 1/9/10 at 5:16pm

OH GOD...

What do I even say? Perhaps I just stay quiet. That's the only way we'll all get through this without the claw scratches.

Brock is a freaking douchebag and fails to offer any INTELLIGENT deconstruction and/or dissection as to what justifies her (or his?) rather harsh opinions. Who the eff are you?

[bwaybabe2]

Posted: 1/9/10 at 6:01pm

Whaattt...?!

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 1/9/10 at 6:09pm

I just saw the matinee today and was completely charmed by it. I enjoyed every minute.

In other news, I didn't see the magnets, but they are selling the souvenir program for $5. :)

~Steven