Musicals: Showing their age? Or timeless?- Page 2

[sweeneyfan]

Posted: 12/3/05 at 8:03pm

Thanks for the info... I knew it wan't too far into the 15 year run

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/3/05 at 8:21pm

I'm really thinking a lot about what everyone is saying here!

I think it comes down to the subject matter and focus of a show. I'm agreeing now that "satire" in general doesn't date a show, but if you're spoofing a specific era or place (either in time or on the map), or specific individuals, the show is likely to age. If you're spoofing or focusing on human emotions, wants, dreams, attitudes in general, or general human behavior, then it shouldn't age at all (if done well and without too many "period" references).

There are several "dual comparison" shows I'm thinking about now...

The Music Man vs. Hello, Dolly! is an interesting "set"...

Personally, I think The Music Man is a better written show. It's a "smarter" show. But because its humor mainly springs from satirizing small town life at the turn of the 20th century (notice I didn't mention anything about the characters when I say that), it's not aging as well as Dolly. Dolly---although set in (roughly) the same "Americana" period---isn't bent chiefly on the period or location. It's more about the characters and their emotional journeys, and so is the humor and music. They are focused on the characters' emotions, rather than the era of the show. That's why it's aging better than Music Man.

Since sweeneyfan mentioned "Hairspray," I'm wondering about "Bye Bye, Birdie." Both of these shows could be considered satirical period pieces as well. I think (as with Music Man) we're going to have to wait until the people who actually were alive during the era in question are long gone (as with Music Man). Then we'll see if people are still laughing at the jokes and situations. I'll be among "the dead" then, so someone will have to let me know.

Updated On: 12/3/05 at 08:21 PM

Posted: 12/3/05 at 8:30pm

jrb, sorry no time to discuss but here's a quick overview of my opinions as I'm off to watch "The Moonstone."

Tommy - I liked it very much even before anyone thought of producing it as a musical. Although whenever I played my original pressing LP, I thought to be a musical. Will age well.

Hedwig and the Angry Inch - Couldn't understand the lyrics but the film works very well, and I like it. Personal story will always be appealing.

Jesus Christ Superstar - Loved it from the first listening of the original recording in the late 60s; disliked the film version, never saw it on stage. Will age well.

Chess - Like it, and own the recording. Will age well, to a point.

Zanna Don't - Don't know it, don't care to.

Avenue Q (which is rather pop) - Cute, but like cotton candy, my taste for it ended as I exited the theatre, and I haven't had a taste for more. Not a score, rather a pastiche of Sesame sounds. Destined to be a footnote in the history of the American musical.

Hairspray (60s pop) - Skillfully written, traditional musical sound, a bad exerpience in the theatre seeing the show. Will age well, and have a long life.

Hair - Love it, love it, love it. A classic.


Updated On: 12/3/05 at 08:30 PM

[grizzabella]

Posted: 12/3/05 at 8:35pm

Thanks for starting this thread, Best12bars. I think it's one of the most enjoyable discussions I've read recently.
About Birdie: I think that a lot of people have already forgotten the satirical elements of Bye, Bye Birdie. I think it qualifies as part of the American canon of theatre during the mid-20th Century. I know when I was growing up, this show was a lot of kids'first exposure to musical theatre. This show was a staple of every high school, music department. It wasn't because the show was a political and cultural satire. It was because it was fun to do and fun to watch. And every few years, don't we hear murmurings about a revival - especially over the last few years, when the '60's were suddenly nostalgic? Where will it be in 50 years? I'll be waiting on the cloud next door to yours to find out, I suppose!

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/3/05 at 8:41pm

Well, then, Jose, going back to the original statement "Am I wrong?", I will say that, yes, I am wrong. It wasn't meant as discriminatory or any such thing. I just didn't know that you actually liked any rock/pop sounds. Glad to know that you do.

Yes, we will disagree about Rent's score--and that's fine.

[musicalsaregreat]

Posted: 12/3/05 at 10:16pm

A lot of people are throwing the word timeless out there, but what is the meaning of timeless. Does it mean that the musical can work in any time period, or does it mean that in many years, any audience can enjoy it even though it is set in a specific period.
I don't believe H2$ is a timeless piece. It is very sexist and works only if it viewed as a late 50's early 60's piece. The number "A Secretary is Not a Toy" infers that all secretaries are women and a woman can only be a secretary.
Most "timeless" musicals make period references that are still understood today. When Annie hit Broadway, it referenced "The Automat" which still existed until the early nineties, but most people today under 30 don't even know what it is. One of the best jokes refers to Harpo Marx. Grace tells Warbucks that he called. Warbucks asks "What did Harpo want?" Grace replies, "He didn't say." Most of today's audiences don't know that Harpo was the Marx brother who never spoke. In another twenty years, that line will be followed by silence. So is Annie "timeless" or not?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/3/05 at 10:21pm

There isn't sexism today? Or sexual harrassment?

And, a revival could easily stage that number to include some male secretaries and female bosses or even a male boss hitting on a male secretary if one wanted to do so.

We have to think outside the box.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 12/3/05 at 10:22pm

Guys & Dolls
Man Of La Mancha

Both showing their age

[jacobtsf]

Posted: 12/3/05 at 10:23pm

musicalsaregreat- I directed H2$ last year and I didn't make it sexist at all. The character of Hedy was powerful and in control of everything except for her emotions. We made 'A secretary is not a toy' much more of a vision of women's power.

I believe that by doing this I am helping the show survive and prosper.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/3/05 at 10:26pm

I just couldn't disagree with you more on those two, Mr. Roxy, but then again, if I agreed with you on something, armageddon would commence.

Updated On: 12/3/05 at 10:26 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/3/05 at 11:15pm

I think CHICAGO will be one of the very few shows that will be as relevant 50 years from now as it is today.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/4/05 at 2:34am

Best12, this is a good thread! Random, but who is your avatar?

So n-e-way-z, as musicalsaregreat pointed out, it's really hard to classify something as timeless, because obviously only time will tell. Sure, there are certain stories (the three little pigs, Cinderella, etc...) that seemingly exist entirely outside the context of history that have made indelible marks on our imaginations. These are the archetypal stories that build the basis for other stories.

There really aren't any archetypal musicals that I can think of. Musicals are made by a set of rules for the most part and as such the little idiosyncracies of each one is what sets them apart. So no matter what a show like H2S, Bye Bye Birdie, Hair, RENT (I think RENT succeeds in its own musical idiom, btw. The book of the show fails to be timeless), which draws so heavily on the place and time in which it is set, isn't timeless. In revival it bears updating or else people just don't get it.

Random shows I think are timeless for pretty much all the same reasons:

Carousel: Fantasy world, immortal story.
West Side Story: Same thing.
Man of La Mancha: Same thing.
Hairspray & Cabaret: Two shows that offer a futuristic view on a past time. They both archive their eras and put classic themes in them. We understand going in we are watching pastiche. In Hairspray's case there is a pretty universal musical sound, and Cabaret just has an off kilter Broadway sound that defies categorization.
Chicago: Same thing.
Into the Woods, Forum, Passion, The Music Man (archived historical time), Guys and Dolls (complete fantasy world), The Fantasticks, there are lots. Piazza, I would say, which has a completely unique musical idiom (We all get the world of Piazza, which is actually pretty unique). The King and I. Beauty and the Beast. Not The Lion King. If it feels anachronistic it's not timeless. Few new Disney movies are, whereas nearly all the old ones feel timeless because every element is in synch. I feel the same way about most of today's movies, especially because of the very small pool of actors who populate the world of movies today. I don't think time will make their faces anonymous. They make too many movies.

I included a lot of musicals that haven't sufficiently had enough time pass to really judge but I guess what I'm saying is that if a musical either puts history in a time capsule or creates a unique fantasy world, and also MUST create a unique musical language and idiom, it will most likely be timeless. Doesn't mean all people will like it but all people will "get" it. It's just that sort of thing... you see knights, you think midieval ages. You hear the harpsichord, it brings up castles and royalty. Etc...

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/4/05 at 11:06am

Roninjoey -- Answer to random question: That's Montgomery Clift in my avatar. I chose him for a few personal reasons. Aside from carving a niche as a landmark actor on Broadway first and then in film, I can tell you I'm actually related to him by marriage. Also, someone recently asked me what the "best12bars" meant. It's an old theatre story. Back when I was pounding the pavements in New York a couple of decades ago, we'd be told every now and then at the ugly cattle calls to sing our "best 8 bars" of a song. Frustrated, I walked into an audition one time and suggested to them if I sang the blues could I get 12 bars? (Fortunately the musical director thought that was hilarious. He understood that "blues" is written in 12 bar phrases instead of 8, and it was my clever and pathetic way of trying to get 4 more bars out of it. He told me just for that, I could sing the whole damn song. I got a callback and almost landed the part... it was a replacement for a lead on Broadway. They narrowed it down to three of us and that's when I got cut. The point is, I decided to be gutsy, semi-clever... and ask for more time to be heard... and it paid off. So I decided to use that as my "name" on this board. It seemed like a personal but logical choice for me.

(end of thread-jack)

I have a few more thoughts today, based on more of these posts! I'm glad everyone is thinking... And I don't believe there are right and wrong answers here (including mine). Because it comes down to "perception." The way a show is perceived when it first opens, the way you and I perceive it now... and the way it is perceived by future generations decades after its original production. The recent shows are too early to judge, yet some as we've pointed out are already having changes in their impact early on. I find it fascinating that a mere 5 years after "A Chorus Line" opened, they had to change the program from "The Present" to "1975." It seems they already knew the material was SO immediate that it had to be frozen in time to work.

jacobtsf --- I love what you said about H2$. The Broadway revival was directed the same way as your approach. The men still ogled the women as scripted (in "A Secretary Is Not a Toy"), but the women's reaction was one of "empowerment" instead of "victim." In previous stagings the secretaries might have thrown up their hands and given us wide-eyed looks of surprise, as the men leered at them. In the revival, they raised a knowing eyebrow, wagged their fingers strongly at them and stood their ground forcefully, while the men turned into a helpless puddle of hormones at their feet. Nothing was changed in the writing, only the staging. It kept the show from being dated. Luba Mason played Hedy the same way. She was in on the "joke," rather than being a sex toy. She knew what her "selling points" were. It was a great way to approach the part. And I also agree with those who have said this show, like Guys & Dolls is a "stylized" satirical world, not a real one.

As far as "Guys & Dolls" it was actually billed originally as a "musical fable." That, in and of itself, is pretty damn funny. If you look up "fable" you get three meanings: The first is a story almost always told with talking animals as main characters, and they have a strong cautionary lesson to be learned. That's kinda funny if you think about the gangsters that way. The second meaning is "a story about legendary persons and exploits." These gangsters are legendary figures, not real ones. And the third meaning is "a falsehood, or a lie."

I think that's why they made the most recent Broadway revival even MORE stylized that the original production was in the '50s. The sets and costumes were candy-colored cartoons. Damon Runyon was from Manhattan KANSAS, not Manhattan, New York. He wrote about the legendary gangsters and their "dolls." Not the real ones.

The problem is that our perception of gangsters and the underground crime world has changed over the years, with films like The Godfather and Goodfellas... and stories about the Gotti family, etc. We are certainly fascinated by them, but we're not "charmed" by their "legend" as much any more. I can't help watching a production of Guys & Dolls without wondering how many of these cute, lovable characters might have stabbed somebody in an alley at one time, or thrown a cement-shoed corpse into the East River.

The same thing has happened with Westerns on TV and film... and even Annie Get Your Gun. We don't see the cowboy legends as terribly heroic anymore. We see them as pioneering, yes... but also land-robbing, Native American slaughtering rebels as well. Gone are the days (like the '50s) when kids idolized Jesse James. This is a good thing to see history more for what it was, but it also changes the way we look at these musical stories now.

[best12bars]

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

I'm thinking more about the "timeless" side of it now. Jerby and others have talked about ways to put these old shows over today (as with Shakespaere), but what it comes down to is compromise. That can either be a good word or an ugly word, depending on how you perceive musicals and theatre... If you're a purist at heart, these compromises could be perceived as "destroying" the original work. But if some of these old shows would otherwise never see the bright lights of Broadway again, it seems like the only way to keep a show alive.

We recently saw "Flower Drum Song" revived on Broadway. I had the pleasure of seeing it in L.A. prior to the NYC run, and I enjoyed it very much. But the producers knew that unless they hired David Henry Hwang to completely overhaul its book, we probably wouldn't have heard that beautiful R&H score again. They also revamped the orchestrations, which made those beautiful melodies sound surprisingly fresh again.

And look at the Sweeney Todd revival on Broadway now. It's been given a brand new "look" and approach, and sound, and people are flocking to it to check it out. But even the original show took liberties... The original "legend" of Sweeney Todd began in the 1700s, not the 1800s. The creative team moved the original story (via Christopher Bond's play) to the industrial revolution era of London, roughly 75 years after these "tales of Sweeney" first were told.

Updating books, lyrics, costumes, settings, etc. doesn't always work... but it gives us a chance to enjoy some of these shows that otherwise might not see the light of day much anymore (No, I'm not suggesting for a moment that Sweeney is one of those).

I'm waiting for someone to tackle "Finian's Rainbow." A great score, a controversial book, but it's very dated. I know the Encores! series tried it on for size, but it needs more thought and more exploring. I think the basic themes ARE universal... and timeless... just as with Flower Drum Song. But the road to telling it needs to be repaved every now and then to avoid any perceived bumps.

Posted: 12/4/05 at 12:33pm

FIANIAN'S RAINBOW as produced by the Irish Rep recently was produced with apparently little revision, and without any apology.

The production was very successful, due in no small part to an extremely strong cast. This was captured on cd and makes for an exciting theatre recording. They used only two pianos, too.

I don't recall Encores! presenting FINIAN'S. Unfortunately, Encores! believes in revising libretti.

About 6 years ago I had the privilege of seeing one of the most enjoyable musical theatre productions I had seen in a very, very long time. This was OF THEE I SING, presented at The Bridewell Theatre in London. The show is a classic and not at all dated. It's literate, it's melodious, it's sharp, it's funny. It is musically complex combining melodies and recitative. There is no question in my mind that OF THEE I SING is timeless.


Updated On: 12/4/05 at 12:33 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/4/05 at 12:38pm

Well, here's another factor:

simply bad productions of old musicals

Wonderful Town is a hokey old musical, but most of the audiences really enjoyed it.

I understand that the recent Oklahoma! was DREADFUL, thus people who only know that production think O! sucks.

Sometimes, just having a clear direction of a traditional production with actors who are breathing their characters in meaty, blood and guts ways--wanting and needing things on that stage as opposed to hitting their marks and singing pretty--can make something feel alive and vital.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/4/05 at 12:42pm

And, I agree, Jose. However, I bet others would say it isn't because they find "old fashioned writing" to be hokey. And at that point, I think it has more to do with people's taste than whether or not the piece is universal.

Now, one may argue that if in 100 years no one on the planet will be entertained by Of Thee I Sing or Oklahoma! because they can't get past the "old fashioned" and "hokey" writing that it is not timeless. But I doubt that will happen as many pieces of theatre are "of another era" and still resonate today.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 12/4/05 at 1:24pm

Here are my two cents. I think musicals (and plays) can survive if they are routinely updated and revised. Original productions almost always seem dated.

[Marquise]

Posted: 12/4/05 at 1:32pm

wow! this thread has grown!
~ i've read most of it and this i agree on some things most of you have already touched upon.
some of the shows that are in danger or *are* considered "dated" benefit from different staging much like the ones best12bars pointed out in his assessment of H2$.
~ others like flower drum song need a re-writing and a re-arrangement of the musical material to refreshen the piece as a whole.
but then there are some musicals that have a certain charm *because* they represent a different place and time and simply shouldn't be touched like, for example: bye, bye birdie
~ as far as RENT is considered it's considered "dated" by some because the East Village isn't the gritty slum the show depicts anymore, AZT is *not* the drug of choice for people with HIV infection and people aren't dropping off like flies because of it and now this just serves as a reminder of how things were.
~ however, it's message of hope in the face of adversity, staying true to ones own's self and the struggles of youth are prevelant in any day and age so on that level, i feel that it isn't dated.
even hair is dated on many levels. is there a draft? no. do people still burn their draft cards? no. the East Village depicted in hair no longer exists either.
~ it hits some kind of a *note* with the older generation because there's a war going on now, and yes on that level it has "something" to say but what about 10 years after it premiered or even 7 years after it closed?
well, the show was being called a time capsule, a relic and a very dated piece and that is why for the most part it's 1977 Broadway revival flopped and despite some favorable reviews it's 1979 film version tanked at the box office.
~ it's only now that people are looking at it with a diffrent point of view. but it still is in many respects a very dated piece.







Updated On: 12/4/05 at 01:32 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/4/05 at 1:36pm

Jose' --- that was "my bad" on Finian's. I wrongfully said Encores! did it. Chalk it up to senility (ha!) and the fact that I now live on "that other" coast and am a bit removed.

I too think that I could appreciate "Finian's Rainbow" and "Of Thee I Sing" as written without any updating required. I also think I could sit through an unedited (5+ hour) original Shakespearean play. (I'll bring my picnic basket.) But I think we're probably in the minority these days as far as widespread mass appeal. Still some producers and theatre companies do take the risk occasionally, and I'm glad to hear it.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 12/4/05 at 1:39pm

But, see, Marquise, that's what I find silly when people say that Rent is dated because

-the East Village isn't as grimy
-AZT isn't what people with HIV take anymore
-people aren't dying as much

I think people can believe in and understand a setting that is grimy and full of poor artists.

I think people can get that these characters have a life threatening virus and take meds for it.

I think people get that this is a virus that people can die as a result of.

I think that's the universality of it. Do we really need to know about the setting of La Boheme and about the disease of that era to get what is happening to the characters there? No.

Updated On: 12/4/05 at 01:39 PM

[Marquise]

Posted: 12/4/05 at 1:43pm

*whoops* i meant to hit "preview" and i hit "post message"!

...but that's not to say that it isn't a good piece. just simply one of it's time.
~ promises, promises is a show i would love to see a revival of but many say it's too dated not only because of it's chauvinistic views but because of it's very mod 1960s Bacharach-David score.
part of that show's charm *is* that Bacharach-David score, so to touch it in my book would be sacrilegious. the book by neil simon which in turn was based on billy wilder and i.a.l. diamond's screenplay the apartment could easily be tweaked to address some of these issues but the show's basic story about the *highs* and *lows* of being in love never goes out of style...

Updated On: 12/4/05 at 01:43 PM

[Marquise]

Posted: 12/4/05 at 1:47pm

jerbs i definitely agree with you.
people need to believe because the show is depicting of what life was back then. it isn't a fairy tale. these things really did happen and really did go on.

and no. one doesn't need to know the origins of the material to *get* what is going on in RENT anymore than one needs to know the logistics of the vietnam war or the origins of the hippie movement to *get* hair.

Updated On: 12/4/05 at 01:47 PM

Posted: 12/4/05 at 2:48pm

There is a strong argument in the creative arts, and it applies to the stage, as well as to film and television, and it is this....

Because something happened that way in real life that alone does not make it dramatic.

I would add, nor does it make what happened to be universal.

Creativity is the talent to take events that happened in real life and to reshape those events and to infuse them with a life of their own, thus transcending real life, and therefore resulting in a retelling of reality in a way that becomes universal.

Shakespeare did this with his historical plays, and even with Romeo & Juliette.

Michael Bennett did this with A CHORUS LINE

Sondheim & Goldman did this with PACIFIC OVERTURES

Gibson did this with THE MIRACLE WORKER

The creators of JERSEY BOYS give us a very current example of taking reality and reshaping it to tell a story dramatically.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/4/05 at 4:20pm

I disagree about Pacific Overtures. It's a very Japanese show. It's about the modernization of Japan. Not much of it transcends the material (except for maybe the song Someone in a Tree, and even then it's because the song is full of a lot of poetic images that speak to me rather than dramatically what the song is about). It goes over great in Japan for a reason.

Not that I don't love the show, but then again, I love Japan. Nihon ga daisuki da yo.

Someone needs to write a non-Bollywood style Indian musical. I'd DIE!