Is it possible to be revolutionary at this point?

[bjivie2]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 12:44pm

With all this talk of how SPRING AWAKENING isn't as revolutionary as everyone says, it got me thinking... what does a show have to do to become revolutionary? Is it even possible for a show to be revolutionary at this point?

It's going to really take someone that can see into the next facet of musical theatre. Johnny B Jones, Porgy and Bess, Show Boat, Oklahoma!, West Side Story, HAIR, A Chorus Line, Company, Cabaret, RENT. These are most all of the shows I would consider to be "revolutionary," but they're revolutions for specifics reasons: introducing plot to musical theatre, sung-thru music theatre, first truly plot-based musical, melding of story, song and dance, first musical drama to fully utilize all aspects of the medium, first introduction to rock music and a political statement, the first interview-based musical with an entirely new form, two concept musicals, a musical that brings social and political issues to the front and gives voice to the next generation.

What's left to be revolutionary about? Is there revolution in the form? In the subject matter? In the message? I don't know what the answer is, I'm posing it to you all.

What do you think?

(P.S. - I'm not arguing whether or not Spring Awakening is revolutionary, this is about the musical theatre form in general, so don't make it a SA thread.)

[jv92]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 12:46pm

I don't think so. You can be innovative, but I think the days of revolutionary musicals are behind us.

[ljay889]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 12:47pm

Well we know it's possible to have a revolutionary costume!

[Born To Reign]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 12:48pm

I think it would be very difficult. They say there are only 15 original plotlines (or is it 13?) I mean, Rent was inspired by La Boheme, yet was considered revolutionary in its updating of the material. I think the only way to be different is your approach. Everything's been covered!

I think this is shown in Doyle's stagings. I know I'm VERY disagreed with, but I think his focus on the material brings a new depth. I love to see revivals where the show is looked at from a completely new place, and I think that's the future.

[VonTussleGirl]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 12:59pm

Three words...

Mime! the Musical.

[Kringas]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 1:02pm

If you can anticipate how something will be revolutionary, wouldn't that negate its revolutionariness?

Updated On: 6/18/07 at 01:02 PM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 1:58pm

The revolution is over. It is no longer possible to be revolutionary. Shows like Hair and Oh! Calcutta! did it all.

I think the most revolutionary thing that has come along in years was Albee's "The Goat or Who Is Syliva" and Albee only used bestiality because the idea of adultery was commonplace.

[misschung]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 2:10pm

Exactly, Kringas.

We won't know what revolutionary is until we see it - and even then it might take a few years before we even realize that it was. If that made any sense whatsoever..

[artscallion]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 2:14pm

I don't think we can know what would be revolutionary until it happens. Just like in visual arts. Who could have foreseen cubism, or Jackson Pollock?

I think that's what kind of defines revolutionary for me; it's new, meaning it never occurred to anyone to do it that way before.

[Born To Reign]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 2:41pm

I completely agree

[thesinger]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 4:49pm

If we were done with revolutions, then theatre is a dead art form.

[gypsiedtokill]

Posted: 6/11/07 at 5:52pm

I think theatre is a revolutionary artform in and of itself. It's the nature of the art of itself that it constantly reinvents, revises and outdoes itself, and that is that not revolution in its most simplistic form? Creativity is its own revolution.

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 6/12/07 at 1:11am

Yes, of course it is.

One complaint I have: when musicals were really popular they reflected the "sound" of the streets. With such shows as "The Producers", and the resurgence in musical comedies, they sound like the streets of the 1940s, IMO.

I think bands like The Darkness, System Of A Down and My Chemical Romance, with operatic overtones, should be the sound of theatre today. All these young people who love rock bands should be going, because that's what's truly exciting. Back in the 40s, the young people went to theatre because it was exciting. They have nothing to be excited about now. Except maybe "Rent", "Wicked" or "Spring Awakening".

With that said, I do see bands such as Darkness and SOAD as equally theatrical as something like "Jesus Christ Superstar" or "Les Miserables". I really would like to see this "sound" in a commercial musical. A modern SOUND and not something from the 1940s. Of course, nostalgia should be allowed to survive.

Also, I think musicals have become too expensive and risky to produce. A lot of young, upcoming talent are being discouraged because 60 year old producers run the industry and go for tried and true formulas. It's not fair because there's always something exciting with young people. There has to be another avenue, another means to express themselves. I am working on something like this at the moment because I'm tired of the state of musicals today. They've always been ingrained into pop culture, even if no one believes people break into song, but they are just not as exciting as they once were.

My opinion anyway.

Updated On: 6/12/07 at 01:11 AM

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 6/12/07 at 1:37am

I think as we continue to evolve there will be more issues to dramatize and revolutionize the theatre. I'm sure people had the same thoughts seeing the original productions of Hair and Cabaret that there was nothing left to discuss and that we had gone as far as we could go. Personally, I would like to see The Fix make it to Broadway with corrupt politics and political scandals as the main themes of the show it would be like the Chicago revival in the sense that it was all a little too outlandish originally, but now it's not so far from the truth.

[antonijan]

Posted: 6/12/07 at 1:54am

"If you can anticipate how something will be revolutionary, wouldn't that negative its revolutionariness?"

Proper word: Negate

Main Entry: ne·gate
Pronunciation: ni-'gAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): ne·gat·ed; ne·gat·ing
Etymology: Latin negatus, past participle of negare to say no, deny, from neg- no, not (akin to ne- not) -- more at NO
1 : to deny the existence or truth of
2 : to cause to be ineffective or invalid
synonym see NULLIFY
- negate noun Updated On: 6/12/07 at 01:54 AM

[kyleorlando]

Posted: 6/12/07 at 1:55am

What is revolutionary?

I think the producers that get behind a show with a sound, message, idea, etc... is revoultionary.

Broadway, I think, is a business.

The shows that are good business are what really becomes revolutionary. Unfortunately, who the hell really knows what will be revolutionary?

For example:

Hair - a true rock musical on Broadway ("You're Own Thing", was a much better off-broadway show was the true first, but it didn't stand the test of time) It's musical libretto is for the most part a book of lists, but the feel represented a generational voice that had not been presented on Broadway.

Jesus Christ Superstar - took an ancient story and translated into the sound of the Now generation

Company - The relationship musical

Oh! Calcutta! - wieners and boobies.

The Wiz - take a white bread story and add a black sensibility. OK, it had been done with Hello Dolly, but Pearl Bailey didn't Ease on Down the Road

A Chorus Line - nuff said

La Cage aux Folles - The first "embraced" opening gay musical

Baby - A show about pregnancy?!?!?

Starlight Express - The show that had a set that was better than the actual show (which John Napier reminded us when he took the best set design Tony for Les Miz)

Carrie - face it. before this, what other show had a he said / she said following with such verocity

Falsettos - the gay off-broadway Marvin triology that made it to Broadway with only the two final acts

Rent - The AIDS musical. Never mind that Falsettos had already done it with more heart

The Lion King - The puppet show

The Producers - The old fashioned musical that winks at itself

and then ummmmm.... ummmmm.....



At this point, I really feel like Xanadu is the next revolutionary musical.

NO!!!!!

HEAR ME OUT!!!!!

Xanadu on Broadway has managed to do what no other show that was based on a film managed to do: make a show from a movie and say we know it wasn't the greatest movie, but so many of you enjoyed it - have a freakin' good time! Xanadu took the (knowing) wink and took it to the Nth degree. It actually surpassed The Producers without being totally crass.

And I'm done defending Xanadu.

Back on topic....

I think there will possibly always be something revolutionary on Broadway. Chances are you will know when it occurs when there are two camps: those who hate the show and those who love the show.

Updated On: 6/12/07 at 01:55 AM

[Born To Reign]

Posted: 6/12/07 at 7:10am

Bingo on your last statement, Kyle

(and I LOVE the signature!)

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 6/12/07 at 8:41am

I'd argue that the secret to SPRING AWAKENING isn't that it's supposedly 'revoloutionary', but that it's simple and rather traditional. A poster on another board referred to it as "DAWSON'S CREEK with a rock score".

Which was also said (minus the 'rock' part) about WICKED.

[Born To Reign]

Posted: 6/12/07 at 8:55am

I agree, but I think it's the juxtaposition of old and new and the staging that set it apart.

I'm a fan now, but I didn't love the show the first time I saw it. I'd generally describe it to people by saying "it was ALL RIGHT... but it was like nothing I've ever seen."

Familiar in structure? sure. Familiar in story? sure. Hopelessly derivitive? sure.

Revolutionary? I don't personally think so, but I think it's worthwhile and has its place

[bjivie2]

Posted: 6/12/07 at 3:49pm

I would think that the next step in musical development would be catering to the current trend in pop music: Hip Hop/R&B/Rap. I haven't heard the show, but it sounds like IN THE HEIGHTS might be leading us in that direction. But I'm wondering if a rap-thru (hehe) piece would work in the near future for fear of it not being taken seriously and just looking stupid. (Trapped in the Closet, example #1) It would take some good craftsmen to make it work.

And I agree with the statements about not being revolutionary until it happens. We won't know til it gets here.

Any opinions on who the revolutionary writers/directors will be? Anyone in particular that stands out at this point?

[WOSQ]

Posted: 6/12/07 at 4:03pm

I think it is in Marat/Sade where one of the characters says, "We're all revolutionaries nowadays."

No show is truly 'revolutionary" in that even after such landmarks as Oklahoma there was still room for lightweight unintegrated shows. After West Side Story there were shows that still had dance 'numbers'. After Hair the fourth wall still existed and not all music was rock.

Shows that are termed 'revolutionary' really only expand a boundary. With Spring Awakening it is true rock music (as opposed to songs with rock orchestrations), but it is also the way the score is used to show feelings and not just move a scene along. The characters sing what they feel. This is where the 'revolution' comes in.

No show has come in and so completely altered the landscape that every show following it was different.

Like everything else, musical theatre evolves.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 6/12/07 at 4:05pm

Well I think it depends on what kind of revolution you want. Do you want to see a revolution of the sort of things Broadway musicals are about (which would be difficult) or do you want to see a revolution of the way Broadway musicals are told (i.e. the structure and presentation of a musical).

Because we're already seeing the latter, with the moving trend towards jukebox musicals and musicals that are basically staged popular movies.

I think it is impossible to be revolutionary. Even with the so called revolutionary musicals, if you really try hard enough you can find another earlier show that did something similiar. The musical itself is an artform that is derivative of another artform that grew into its own entity. Now we've sort of coming full circle and back into operetta.

Things like In the Heights and Spring Awakening are fun and "revolutionary" because they are promiment examples of the sorts of musicals you don't see very often. I don't think producers and the people who create musicals should become obsessed with trying to be as hep as possible though. Those two shows work because they are honest.

[BigFatBlonde]

Posted: 6/12/07 at 4:47pm

Musical theatre artists will always find new ways of surprising us. Otherwise the art form is dead.

As for revoluntionary.. only a handfull of shows have been truly revoluntionary. I mean revolutionary in the sense that shows before "it" were written in one way and almost all shows written after "it" are written in the new way.

Oklahoma is the best example.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 6/12/07 at 4:52pm

That's true. Oklahoma is about the only show I can think of where that happened (pretty much every single show written afterwards was written in the Oklahoma style). Company also had a gradual but long effect on the musical theater.

I suppose the Euro musicals don't really count since they were all written by the same people.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 6/12/07 at 4:55pm

In regards to Spring Awakening...sometimes I feel like if you write a musical with a contemporary rock score, throw some unnecessary obscenities in there, cast attractive young people, and start at an off-Broadway not-for-profit, people will holler "revolutionary." It isn't, but it's still not the norm, and it's something that today's generation could come across while flipping through channels without thinking it looks terribly corny and old fashioned. I guess it's part of the ongoing revolution to try to get musical theatre into today's voice.