Most obnoxious and delusional musical fans... — Page 8

BUT, I do think there are some people (not all) who are not capable of understanding the show, which in turn makes it hard to take their opinion of the show seriously because their opinion is uninformed. In other words, there is nothing wrong in my opinion with disliking FOLLIES if you understand it, but there is something wrong with disliking it if you don't understand it.

No, there isn't. If they didn't like what they saw, it doesn't matter why. It doesn't matter whether they understand the subtext or subtlety of the book, score or concept. Anyone can like or not like anything they want for any reason. The ONLY criterion for forming an opinion on a show is seeing it.

Why did they overlook this? Well, it could be that

1. The concept was not able to be conveyed successfully by deficiencies in writing, directing, acting etc.

2. The person lacked the ability to understand the concept of subtext either because of a lapse in attention, or lacking prerequisite knowledge of 'something' (e.g. a certain understanding of how songs can tell a story) that would allow them to understand.

So? Either it's a poor production or it just isn't the show for them. And just as you said, someone (like myself) may be equipped with all the knowledge and understanding and still not like the show, so what difference does it make? The whole "they just don't get it" argument is wasted energy and it's not their problem. It's yours for trying to justify someone else's opinion when it isn't warranted.

---

No, there isn't. If they didn't like what they saw, it doesn't matter why. It doesn't matter whether they understand the subtext or subtlety of the book, score or concept. Anyone can like or not like anything they want for any reason. The ONLY criterion for forming an opinion on a show is seeing it.

. And just as you said, someone (like myself) may be equipped with all the knowledge and understanding and still not like the show, so what difference does it make?

People can have an 'opinion' about whatever they like, sure. But there are informed opinions and there are uninformed opinions. If someone has an uninformed opinion (e.g. through a lack of understanding) that FOLLIES is "poorly written" then their claim is a lot less convincing than someone else who claims FOLLIES is poorly written with an informed opinion. There is nothing, IMO pretentious about calling someone up on this (not suggesting people who dislike FOLLIES should be blindly dismissed as uninformed, as what I think happens on this forum).

If the opinion was simply "I don't like the show" then of course it doesn't really matter whether they are informed or not, it's simply their subjective experience which is necessarily true and cannot be 'wrong' - I think it's when people follow these with claims ("I don't like the show so it's bad") as opposed to ("I don't like the show because I don't understand it") where the difference between an informed and uninformed opinion matters. In the case of claiming a show is bad because they don't like it, they are actually presenting an argument and trying to convince others of something....

---

Updated On: 7/19/12 at 08:37 PM

""Where do we draw the line between people who are pretentious and people who actually are highly intelligent, educated people that do know better than the 'commoner'. "

I admit, I can't believe you just said that, hahaha. I'm holding out hope your "obvious troll-style" comment is another way of saying "just kidding!"

I LOVED Follies. As I mentioned before, it was the best thing I've seen in years.

On my way home, I reflected on what I had just seen, and realized I haven't been THAT invested in a performance since the first time I saw A Chorus Line in '97. It was a different form of investment though. At ACL, I was sucked into the piece almost involuntarily. Everything about it drew me in, whether I liked it or not.

At Follies, I kept my ears open and my senses finely tuned, moreso than usual. I'm already the type that gets completely lost in the experience of watching a show, so this extra dedication was something else.

And it was COMPLETELY unnecessary.

Turns out the hype this musical has received has somehow given me the impression that it isn't very accessible. That it's BRILLIANT in a special way that requires some sort of special input.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Sondheim is a brilliant lyricist who lovingly and thoughtfully crafts his musicals meticulously. Not just in words but in all areas. The result is a meticulously crafted piece that achieves depth.

Does it achieve something otherworldly and mysteriously moving and highly intellectual? Not really. I experienced the same thing after seeing Sunday In the Park With George and I went expecting to be treated to something highly sophisticated and refined and really high brow. I enjoyed the show, but I had trouble finding justification for the overblown intellectual component some (because, obviously, a great many Sondheim fans aren't pretentious) people swear is the reason his works move them.

Ultimately, what people differ on regarding his musicals has got nothing to do with this supposed inherent intellect embedded in his shows or in his fans' brains and the lack of it in everyone else. And suggesting that's what it is makes me angry because time and time again I find myself approaching one of his shows with trepidation due to the hype and end up coming away scratching my head because there was not much more thinking involved than what I engage in at one of my favorite musicals, which is usually said to be lacking in depth and caters to the commoner.

We should be drawing people in to the theatre, not alienating them with empty hype that is so overblown, I end up realizing after watching what turns out to be a perfectly accessible show, that I have a headache because a bunch of people give the impression there's something there that requires more than just sitting and paying attention.

I am so glad Follies did not prove to be an arduous jigsaw puzzle of an experience as it is often said to be. Depth it has lots of but I expected no less from a musical said to be great. And great it was and the score as catchy as ever.

Sondheim's musicals appeal to me personally because he has a unique way of framing truths and relaying them to us in a distinctly contemplative manner and has a knack for making generally unlikable, highly flawed, neurotic people relatable.

I admit that in some cases his works come off a tad too manic and focus too long on topics most people only really care about if it happens to them, and can't care less to see a whole show about it. I had my doubts about Follies and felt a whole show about neurotic, bitter people with marital problems to sound utterly boring but I was proven wrong and ended up finding each of those characters and their respective folly continue to nudge at and haunt me days later.

At the same time, I can definitely see the rationale of those who slept through it. Yes, it's possible to understand both. You'd think the highly intelligent could achieve that; a better rounded understanding rather than a single-sided one.

That said, I'd drop trying to suggest there's something more intellectual about you or other fans. The commoner could see that's an empty claim.

---

Can we agree that some shows are art and some are not. However, the ability to draw and gain a fan base is blind to whether a show is art. Some shows are blockbusters for the sake of being a blockbuster, they are not trying to impact or change the genre in any way, the fans of those shows do not bother me. They can be raving mad fans for that show, good for them. Typically, I find these blockbusters enjoyable in performance. Do they stick with me and resonate afterwards... rarely.

With that said, I would like to point out that the lyrics to "Popular" and "Wonderful" stick with me and resonate afterwards, but on the whole, I feel WICKED is a grand spectacle of a blockbuster that was in no way attempting to impact the musical theatre genre. The goal behind WICKED was to provide an enjoyable night at the theatre and to make money. It regularly does both, so it has made its mark.

Sondheim pieces on the other hand, I feel, try to manipulate and alter the genre is some way. I would think that most would call his work art. Sondheim takes big risks on his shows, and may not always know if they will fail or succeed (i.e. The Frogs). So, it's not pretentious... it's not more serious than the blockbuster pieces... it's just more informed artistically. Typically, at least in my neck of the woods (Houston, TX), his work is not easily accessible to non-theatergoers. His work does not sell out here. Partly, because only serious theatre fans in Houston, TX will try him out. Others will simply pass it off as something they have never heard of and ignore it. Or they will attempt it and hate it because it was hard to understand (i.e. made them think outside of the comfortable box that the Blockbusters play into).

Basically, people are going to have opinions about every show. Some will go down in history as being these seminal pieces that continued the evolution of the genre and others won't. Some will only be remembered for being cash cows. It's no big deal either way, and I feel that anyone who is happy being a fan of any show has their right to feel that way. No one should be able to diminish someone based on what their taste is. I hate to see all this bad blood between people who share a passion for the same genre and type of event. Both are GREAT in their own right and both can be wonderful and charming and delightful and so on and so on.

P.S. By classifying some shows as art and others as blockbusters, I am in no way attempting to distinguish a difference in quality, just a difference in motive/level or risk involved in creating the show. Furthermore, I feel WICKED started out as an attempt at an artful piece, but due to changes made during its run at La Jolla it changed into a commercial Blockbuster and left the art camp behind.

The Real Bitches of the BroadwayWorld Forum.