Musicals that have aged poorly with time?- Page 3

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 1:59am

" But Carousel does not look back on these attitudes and criticize them, it condones them. "

 

I emphatically disagree with this statement.

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

When Billy kills himself, and Carrie says that Julie is better off, Julie answers her "you're right, Carrie".  That is the exact opposite of condoning his behavior - a widow saying that she is better off with her husband dead is a very strong statement condemning his behavior.

And sadly, the show's subject matter is far from obsolete.  For those who think it is no longer relevant, congratulations on your wonderful privilege of never having had to deal with those issues personally.  For those of us who have, seeing that part of our stories told on stage (via either Julie or Louise) is a rare experience that we don't often get to have in a theatre, and is very cathartic.  I personally have been led to an epiphany about my own situation brought about by seeing Carousel, and it was comforting to think about how much better life can be despite a bad start, as depicted in the show.  It was definitely cheaper than therapy, and with much better music! 

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 2:09am

I would have to agree on Carousel, which I think, with the right approach (christ, I can't imagine it otherwise) absolutely doesn't condone his actions towards her, but instead shows the complexities and, sometimes, dangers of human love, need, and desperation.

 

SweetLips said: "When I  saw a production of My Fair Lady I was shocked at what Professor Higgins was saying to and about Eliza.

I was looking and listening with 21st centuary sensibilities but this was written in a time and place where this is what it was.

I did feel uncomfortable and couldn't 'laugh' at the situations and took the edge off allowing me to enjoy and accept it as written.

So--MFL won't 'age' as it is totally in period but I as an audience have aged and become less tolerant with things that disturb[help me find a better word].

 

SL........x"

The ending turns it into utter hogwash. Traumatic Bonding: The Musical!

[aaaaaa15]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 2:18am

adam.peterson44 said: "I emphatically disagree with this statement."

The quote you used does suggest she's better off without him but I'm talking about the physical abuse specifically which is likened to a kiss and no-one responds criticizing or disagreeing with this statement.

That is promoting a dangerous attitude towards physical abuse in which easily influenced people (of which there are many) may then believe that people can enjoy being the victim of it. 

[imeldasturn]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 5:07am

The problem with my fair lady is that they decided to change Shaw's finale. When Eliza does not accept to go back with Higgins, we realize how strong she has grown; in the musical, her coming back at the end totally deletes everything she said in the scene after the ball

[theatredk]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 8:44am

Perhaps most musicals should do what A Chorus Line in the mid 80s when people were thinking it was dated as the Playbill Stated saying the Show is taking place at This Theatre, 1975 [it was something like that]. So other shows could have this disclaimer putting the Theatre goers in another frame of mind.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 9:14am

A couple more observations:

"But Carousel does not look back on these attitudes and criticize them, it condones them."

That's the takeaway distinction to me. A show that condones (and yes we can argue about the substance) is not something that appeals to a great many theatre-goers. And even more so when a show exploits the attitude. 

But the consideration is really not focused on that in and of itself. People produce shows for audiences, and there are some things that audiences don't generally want to see in musicals. We talk about shows that do not find an audience because of subject matter or tone pretty often (e.g., Side Show); shows that contain offensive attitudes or situations are really just a subset of that. And yes, we are capable of understanding context, but that misapprehends the dynamic of finding an audience for the show. People do not go to musicals to look disparagingly on the attitudes of bygone eras, even when the intent is to "deal with" rather than exude an offensive attitude or situation. (E.g., Scottsboro).

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 9:17am

One question I think should be asked ... is "aging badly" the same thing as "couldn't be performed in a time setting of the present day?"

Shows like "A Chorus Line" or "How to Succeed" work well as period pieces, but you can't put them on in 2016 with it being a "current" setting. I would even say "Rent" works well as a period piece.

Updated On: 3/28/16 at 09:17 AM

[wickedfan]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 10:00am

HogansHero said: "A couple more observations:

"But Carousel does not look back on these attitudes and criticize them, it condones them."

That's the takeaway distinction to me. A show that condones (and yes we can argue about the substance) is not something that appeals to a great many theatre-goers. And even more so when a show exploits the attitude. 

"

 

Carousel does not condone domestic violence. It never has.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 10:16am

A work that has aged poorly with time is all too often confused with one that can best be enjoyed, in any age, as a product of its time.

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 10:45am

Most shows are products of their time. That's why its important when they are being revived that you have a director that understands how to honor the work but make it understandable -relatable - palatable for a contemporary audience.  This is Bart Sher's great gift.

 

Certainly, Nick Hytner understood all the issues being discussed in this thread about CAROUSEL and his revival in the early 90s (still the greatest revival I have ever seen in my life) handled it all beautifully. It never felt dated or out of touch.

 

In terms of musicals like A CHORUS LINE or RENT; I think you could argue they don't age poorly -- they just loose their immediate relevance.  But because at the heart of a great musical you have universal themes and character's with universal desires, they can still be performed successfully decades after they were created.

 

 

[hankcolson]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 10:51am

Granted I've only seen it once several years ago, but I found Phantom intolerable. Schlocky romance with no humor or self awareness. When my ignorant friends say they "hate musicals" this is what they're mistaking all of musical theatre for. 

[BarryDog]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 10:54am

Yes to Rent. And by that I mean No to Rent. 

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 10:55am

Hank - I think that's really more a question of personal taste. People made those same complaints about PHANTOM in London in 1986, but there are a lot of audiences who obviously love it.  But there is nothing overtly dated about the staging or material of PHANTOM in my opinion.

[Kad]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 11:20am

Patti LuPone FANatic said: "I would say "Little Shop of Horrors" has aged poorly.  I'm am somewhat aware of it, but not sure of the time period.  There's a song from the show that I hear on Sirius XM every once in a while.  These lyrics make me wince:  "Seymour's the greatest...but I'm dating a semi sadist." Then she says something about being in a cast and having a black eye. Yuck.  "

Little Shop hasn't aged poorly at all- it still plays like gangbusters almost 30 years after it debuted.

It condemns Audrey's abusive boyfriend pretty explicitly and doesn't present their relationship in romanticized terms.

 

[Alex10]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 11:31am

adam.peterson44 said: "" But Carousel does not look back on these attitudes and criticize them, it condones them. "

 

I emphatically disagree with this statement.

 

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

When Billy kills himself, and Carrie says that Julie is better off, Julie answers her "you're right, Carrie".  That is the exact opposite of condoning his behavior - a widow saying that she is better off with her husband dead is a very strong statement condemning his behavior.

 

And sadly, the show's subject matter is far from obsolete.  For those who think it is no longer relevant, congratulations on your wonderful privilege of never having had to deal with those issues personally.  For those of us who have, seeing that part of our stories told on stage (via either Julie or Louise) is a rare experience that we don't often get to have in a theatre, and is very cathartic.  I personally have been led to an epiphany about my own situation brought about by seeing Carousel, and it was comforting to think about how much better life can be despite a bad start, as depicted in the show.  It was definitely cheaper than therapy, and with much better music! 

 

"

This is the exact reason that I think musicals should never stop being performed or be changed despite some aspects no longer feeling current (I do completely agree with you that these issues are not obselete, but I do think the kind of rhetoric about women put out there by Billy and other characters is now rarely so explicitly expressed). Even though I personally am very uncomfortable watching the content in this show even knowing that it takes place in a different time period, I'm really glad you had such a valuable experience with this show. And the music is amazing. I definitely think it will have less widespread appeal today than when it was written, and would attract more controversy, but I definitely don't think of it as either horrible or irrelevant.

 

As for RENT, I agree that it would work as a period piece. The early 90's New York setting is deeply important to the story and characters. Without that, the piece would crumble.

[Kad]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 11:41am

When I think of a show "aging poorly," I tend to think of those shows from the 30s/40s that appear in Encores! seasons. Shows that no longer meet audience expectations of show construction, shows that are essentially production numbers stitched together with a loose and somewhat incoherent plot that doesn't explore character development, dramatic action, etc. etc.

A show like Annie Get Your Gun- even without its depiction of Native Americans or its weird gender politics- I still would consider to have aged poorly because there just isn't a lot there aside from some great songs. Things just sort of...happen. It is a very dated show in terms of its construction.

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 11:52am

I've seen a couple of productions of ANNIE GET YOUR GUN that were well done and made the corny old script and politics work (not the Bernadette Peters revival which drove me crazy).  And ANNIE GET YOUR GUN is still performed all the time.  So audiences must largely be responding to it still.   guess the answer to the question is -- if the show is no longer being performed regularly anymore - its at the very least a product of its time, and possibly has 'aged poorly.'

 

Certainly we almost never see revivals of a lot of the shows of the 60s and 70s -- AINT SUPPOSED TO DIE A NATURAL DEATH, APPLAUSE, RUNAWAYS, RAISIN,  WHAT MAKES SAMMY RUN, HALLELUJAH BABY, etc.  I can only imagine its because these haven't aged 'well.'

Updated On: 3/28/16 at 11:52 AM

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 12:38pm

It'd be fun to see a campy revival of Applause, though it's too bad about the "I don't need a career, I need a MAN!" ending, which is what really dates it.

[sarahb22]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 1:11pm

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned "Finian's Rainbow" yet.  The whole storyline about the white senator turning black is just cringeworthy now.  I don't think anybody even performs it anymore, do they?

[Patash]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 1:13pm

I'd add Little Abner.  Why do some high schools and community theatres still do this (other than whoever picks the shows happens to love it, probably because they once played in it)?  First of all, no one under the age of about 40 even knows who these characters are.

 

Shows like Fiorello and Call Me Madam fall flat because the characters are no longer really well known, but shows like Guys and Dolls and Gypsy still play beautifully. 

[Kad]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 1:14pm

sarahb22 said: "I'm surprised nobody's mentioned "Finian's Rainbow" yet.  The whole storyline about the white senator turning black is just cringeworthy now.  I don't think anybody even performs it anymore, do they?"

In its most recent revival (2009), it actually... wasn't as bad as you'd think.

 

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 1:15pm

Kind of upsetting how frequently addressing a topic is considered celebrating it. Little Shop especially, come on--it's as popular as ever and you are meant to hate Orin for being abusive. 

[Randomlink1]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 1:17pm

I haven't seen Finian's Rainbow, but as long as they do it with a knowing nod and don't do it THAT badly, I think it's fine. An example of this comes from the Wan-tan-yee girls in Music Man, where although the impersonating Native Americans and pretending that their language is just random words s offensive, its never done in full out red-face and the knowledge that this is a community full of white people from the early 1900's helps to understand why they're doing it. 

[Randomlink1]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 1:20pm

Scarywarhol said: "Kind of upsetting how frequently addressing a topic is considered celebrating it. Little Shop especially, come on--it's as popular as ever and you are meant to hate Orin for being abusive. 

 

"

Yeah, I don't understand why people think that makes it age poorly with time or condone it. I mean, they have a song about Orin glorifying how evil he is, to the point where as a child he murdered small animals for fun. It's so cheesy that you can't really take it seriously, and Audrey and his relationship is never supposed to be a representation of a good relationship.

 

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 3/28/16 at 1:21pm

In the first place, Hammerstein didn't invent the characters in OKLAHOMA! Lynn Riggs invented them in GREEN GROW THE LILACS, the source adapted for the musical.

In the second, who said villains have to get a chance for redemption? Oddly enough, the great-grandfather of all Western dramaturgy, Aristotle, never mentions anything of the kind.

Third, what Hammerstein DOES do is argue for his villain's point of view. Although "Lonely Room" wasn't used in the film and isn't as well known, it does an excellent job of dramatizing the bleakness of Jud's life and explains why he acts the way he does. "Poor Jud is Dead" does its job in showing how Jud is a target of ridicule by the others in the community. Jus is NOT a melodrama villain, who is evil just for evil's sake.

 Fourth, the show was written in the middle of a world war against fascist dictators. How would you expect it to portray a bully? (And if you'll check the news, I think you'll find we're still struggling against fascism, at home and abroad, today.)

 

Good to see another friendly discussion on this board about a matter of life and death. I have to admit, I haven’t noticed a lot of fascists around lately, although I was pretty pissed when they installed one of those automatic cameras in front of the high school that takes a photo of your license plate if it catches you speeding.

I'm aware of the source for the book of Oklahoma. Oscar Hammerstein II was and is a giant of American arts and letters. Lynn Riggs in comparison is a lilliputian. I'm sure that you understand that Hammerstein had no obligation and I'm sure no inclination to accept the characters as portrayed by Riggs.

Hammerstein did not have to give Jud a chance for redemption, but as a compassionate man who was slow to judge others it was unlike him to just let Jud ratify the shallow and smug opinions that the other characters had of him with his final act of attempting to murder Curly. I'm aware of "Lonely Room." When I was 10 and 11 my mother played the OBC albums all the time. "Lonely Room" was the most disturbing song to my young mind. It does let the audience know that Jud is lonely, unloved, uneducated, suffering from a desperate unrequited love for Laurey and without hope for the future.

But a modern audience already knows this. No one in the cast treats him with any kindness or understanding. Laurey toys with Jud, although she is aware of his love for her, when she agrees to go to the social with him just to get back at Curley, and then changes her mind and dumps him. Curley visits him and tries to manipulate him into killing himself.

For an instance of what I mean by redemption you have to look no further than Carousel, where Billy, unable to be admitted to heaven, returns to New England for one day, the graduation day of the lonely and bitter daughter he never knew, and gives her a star stolen from heaven. He tells Julie that he had really loved her as his daughter shows the first signs of reaching out to others.

I will concede, however, that "Lonely Room" does show Jud as a more complicated person to the audience. From the point of view of any of the characters in his life, though, Jud is the melodramatic villain and Jud does nothing to persuade them otherwise.

I really don't think that Oscar wrote the book as a political allegory in which Jud serves as a stand-in for Hitler or Mussolini. I think that he wrote it hoping for a commercial success, since it had been many years since he had had a hit musical.

Contrast the book here with that of Carousel, South Pacific and The King and I and I think that you would have to admit that the leading characters in those musicals are drawn with much greater depth and the stories are much more intricate.

Anyway, we are not debating Shakespeare here, just a popular American musical that ultimately lives or dies with its musical score. If we moved this discussion to opera, how would the stories that accompany many of the most famous operas stand up today's social mores? And come to think of it, what about Shakespeare and that Shylock character.

Updated On: 3/28/16 at 01:21 PM