Is it possible to be revolutionary at this point?- Page 2

[Unknown User]

Posted: 6/12/07 at 5:33pm

Why are the SA obsceneties unecesary? if you accept it's conceit of the songs being done from the characters perspective in a modern day viewpoint I think all those characters would use the words they use...

Remember 50 years ago now (! wow) a few critics complained abotu language in West Side Story (the line Schmuck in Officer Krupke was even rewritten to Schmo so that Columbia would allow it to be on the recording--for the recording).

E

[me2]

Posted: 6/12/07 at 9:36pm

I agree Bway Girl. I think in our time, we lost sight of what revolutionary/bold/provacative/pushing boundaries is.

Okay. Caution: Soap Box ahead.

It used to be that "Supper Time" was revolutionary because it said something bold. OKLAHOMA! was revolutionary because it stretched the form. In other areas--"Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" stretched the bounds of inter-racial relationships. ALL IN THE FAMILY brought on a very controversial character but in a smart way.

Now . . . Something is pushing boundaries or breaking new ground if it involves sex or nudity or swearing. NYPD BLUE was revolutionary . . . For what?!? Doing what movies had been doing for years but now on television? Girls kissing . . . body parts . . . particularly gory violence . . . Sorry. Not bold/pushing boundaries/smart.


Broadway Blog: Give Them What They Want / Za Ba Zoovee (Broadway vs. Pop)

[gymman]

Posted: 6/12/07 at 9:51pm

Possible to be different, but "revolutionary"??? I doubt it, since theater now is about money, whether it's "Spring Awakening" or "Grey Gardens." Where is revolutionary theater? Tom Stoppard...LOL.

Mamet tried, Sam Shepard, yeah, but Broadway? Look at what happens to works that try to say something recently..."Journey's End" "Company," "Sweeney Todd," etc. They all fail financially. Broadway wants simple-minded "entertainment"--that's it.

Look at the negative reactions to the final brilliant episode of "The Sopranos"...duh.
Updated On: 6/12/07 at 09:51 PM

[bjivie2]

Posted: 6/18/07 at 2:50am

Not to bash the revival, but what was Sweeney Todd trying to "say" with it's inventive staging? To me that's an example of reviving a musical for it's storytelling, not making a statement.

[Becoz_i_knew_you21]

Posted: 6/18/07 at 2:55am

I don't think Spring Awakening is revolutionary. The juxtaposition of Spring Awakening works very well but, no other show could use the microphone concept. I don't fell the obscenities in the show are unnecessary. They capture what is going on in that moment. Kyleorlando, got it down.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 6/18/07 at 10:47am

>> 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.

The problem tho is that XANADU assumes a great deal of its audience: that the audience is so familiar with the source material that it gets the jokes about it, that the audience appreciates the parodaic nature of the form. XANADU wasnt a hit film by any stretch; maybe 14 people actually saw it in its theatrical release and perhaps a couple of dozen more bothered with the DVD until the stage version was announced. Now, from what I've read of the stage version, it's all camp and no substance -- and good parody *requires* a sense of substance, no matter how slight, to succeed. Otherwise, it's a one-joke approach ("We're making fun of a failed 80s movie! Arent we clever?"). REEFER MADNESS knew better than to go this route, and that's the difference.

But Broadway? Revolutionary? Given that there are hardly any original musicals anymore and that everything is adapted from something else, it's difficult to be revolutionary when you're simply a reflection of someone else's success. SA is "revolutionary" only in the sense that it's taking 20-year-old musical forms (Face it: a lot of it comes directly from the 80s punk sensibility) and parading it before a market that's never seen it presented on stage before. But that doesnt make it "revolutionary", nor is very little else listd in that previous post. HAIR, probably, but the rest? Not really. They're evolutions, not revolutions.

[Kringas]

Posted: 6/18/07 at 11:13am

Thanks for catching that, antonijan. I'm reminded of the adage about the stopped clock.

[Horton]

Posted: 6/18/07 at 11:31am

I think time will tell what is revolutionary. It is impossible to tell today what will people will see as important in 10 years from now.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/18/07 at 12:30pm

Musicals are rarely "revolutionary". Musical theatre is most definitely "evolutionary". Certain shows cause new trends in style/content/structure while others may take the art form to a new level of writing/staging/producing/directing.

In addition, I do think some shows are somewhat "subversive" in that they depart from the Broadway musical theatre stereotype and are usually a result of the current political and social climate. These shows usually capture the attention of critics and audiences, but often do not take the top prize at the Tonys. In the past decade or so, Rent and Avenue Q are the only "subversive" show to win Best Musical. For Spring Awakening to win as much as it did was quite an accomplishment. And while its individual elements may not be revolutionary, I do believe its combination of elements is fairly unique to Broadway as a musical.

I don't think the show is revolutionary as its combination of previously used styles and ideas may be too specifically unique to start any new styles or trends in musical theatre. Whether or not it will contribute to the evolution of Broadway musicals remains to be seen.

[Mealz1042]

Posted: 6/18/07 at 1:20pm

I feel like we can't know what something revolutionary would be like because then it wouldn't be revolutionary. I think the possibility is still out there I mean we don't live in a completely taboo-less word nor have we seen everything there is to be seen so yes, I think it's certainly possible.

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 6/18/07 at 5:12pm

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

That's what I was going to say Kringas, though not so eloquently

We don't know what is possible to come out of people's creative minds, and maybe something can come along and be truly revolutionary.

Though I think in terms of that word, you can only determine a show's true revolutionarism(?) years after it has premiered, to see has it truly revolutionized theatre, have shows followed it and been similar? That's what revolutionary is.

And there's also a sort of...esteem associated with the word. To think of just what has changed musical theatre, as some people have pointed out, Mamma Mia was a big change, but I don't think many of us would like to bestow "revolutionary" on it.

Plus, let's be honest, we're living in a time where old shows are given more...acclaim than new shows...not that that's not deserved, but I definitely think there is a biased towards show of today, and a truly revolutionary show would have to fight to overcome that bias...people aren't going to easily accept comparing a show that comes out today to West Side Story.

[danstudney]

Posted: 6/18/07 at 9:52pm

I think those who are saying that "revolutions" are hard to judge as they are happening are closest to the truth.

With this "we need perspective" theory in mind, I think The Last Great Revolution in The Musical came out of the 1980's -- aka The British Invasion (and though it may sometimes seem so, they are not really written by "all the same people," but we'll call them ALW & Co. for short).

What ALW & Co. did, in their desire to keep a constant stream of spectacle and wonder directed at the audience, was to provoke stagecraft/design to greater heights. In turn, this affected how shows were actually written. They are now written more cinematically, in my opinion. Perhaps this is also why we see so many movies being turned into musicals, but that's another point.

Prior to this time, it was standard to write "traveler curtain" scenes -- short scenes with little or no sets where big changes could be happening behind the traveler. Think "The Rumor" from Fiddler. I've noticed the great reduction, and in most cases elimination, of these types of scenes.

That, to me (in a way) is an actual revolution.

BTW on another note, SeanMartin, nice of you to say about Reefer Madness. We did try to make it about something more than just poking fun at how bad the source was -- it always annoys me to hear dumbass comments like "you can't parody a parody" in relation to that show because A) easy to say, B) I don't think that's all we did, and C) the other stuff is not very difficult to see or understand. I always want to say, "Maybe *you* can't..."

I would add that there have been other "bad" movies that were made very successfully into musicals, chiefly among them the one Reefer owes a large debt of gratitude to, Little Shop of Horrors, which is actually Faust in disguise much the same way that Rent is La Boheme in disguise.

[ahmelie]

Posted: 6/19/07 at 11:01pm

I think it will be a while until we are able to see truly revolutionary works on Broadway again. Beautiful, innovative, and revolutionary musicals are out there but are not being put on Broadway because of one thing.

Money.

People are too afraid to support the revolutionary, and too quick to support the safe.