I think that high schools, with a few exceptions, have been doing shows such as My Fair Lady, Oklahoma, Fiddler and the occasional Pippin for so long, that they all jump at the opportunity to do the "hit" shows (Even if they are a few years outside of the hit category.)
The problem is that the hits have been running on Broadway/West End/Tours for so long, that the rights haven't been available since they opened. Therefore, everyone is now jumping at them. If you're HS director, and the district over from you is doing "Les Mis".. you probably fear a mutiny if you choose Oklahoma. Hence, 15 Beauty and The Beasts.
However, I think it's a good thing that HS' are picking up the new works. It allows students/audiences to see that there have been progressions in musical theatre. Otherwise, folks in Nowherville, KS think musicals are just West Side Story and Oklahoma. There's a large amount of hostility towards the "classics" from the younger generations. Does it mean the works are any less quality? No... people are just tired of working on them.
Back to the original question - I've long said Wicked will be better in the stock and amateur performances than the current production. Hairspray in a HS will be quite popular.
I've seen some amazing HS performances, and some pretty crappy ones. I think it's great to have younger people work on the works that are (in general) ones that audiences crave now. At least it makes it easier for them to get people in to watch and, in turn, pushes them to do more theatre. I just wish more directors would approach lesser known pieces. When I was in high school, I was fortunate to have a director who preferred to do shows that the students/parents weren't overly familar with. It let the students have a greater chance to truly create, and not have to compete with the memories engrained in heads of "the real version." In my opinion.
End semi-rant.
Charlie
magicpiane@kc.rr.com
Updated On: 5/8/05 at 08:00 PM