NYTimes' Brantley & Green's Best of 2018 — Page 2

@bear88 good points. At some point, the message will sink in that the risk with these exploitation undertakings is as great or greater than the new work. That then leads to a serious investment in the PROCESS of making musicals, which I believe involves a marriage of musical talent (i.e., people with the ability to write songs folks want to hear outside of the MT cocoon) and craft (people who have the ability to put a show together in an intelligent and enticing way). The jukebox brings the former, but in the case of Cher, not the latter. The latter is where the heavy lifting is needed.It is hard to believe that a bookwriter, a director, and a few producers could not listen to a reading of that material and have the same reaction that I did about its flatfootedness. And one of those producers (although, to be fair, he was likely just there to help a friend) is the person responsible for Hamilton. What is required are producers who nurture the good people, and are involved enough to force the mediocre ones to do better. Because, we can do better.

KnewItWhenIWasInFron said: "Weird that the NYT headline identifies the lists as "Best Broadway" when the lists are mostly not Broadway. (Thanks, OP, for getting it right with your headline, anyway...)"

Uh, the headline is "The Best Theater of 2018"

haterobics said: "HogansHero said: "Uh, the headline is "The Best Theater of 2018""

I believe they are confusing the URL with the headline."

I am not confusing anything. The headline is as I said it is, the URL has the word Broadway in it. Perhaps the person to whom I responded was looking at the URL and calling it a headline.

ETA: yes I misread. Sorry Haterobics.

Updated On: 12/5/18 at 05:13 PM

Re: the questions of why musical theatre isn't thriving and growing like plays are, and of why it's still dominated by the "old fart white gay Jew" majority Marc Shaiman joked about?

I had a conversation with many of my friends, particularly women and performers/writers of color, asking about this exact question last winter. Ultimately it boiled down to three repeated answers.

1. Many non-male or non-white creatives feel shut out of musical theatre, either by its racist/whitewashed roots or by years of female objectification.

2. Many, in today's sociopolitical climate, have rejected the narrative fiction-making to embrace "speaking truth" through alternative forms: live storytelling, spoken-word poetry, one-person shows, etc. They prefer to interpret, own and express their lived experience directly.

3. And many simply don't care. Much like there aren't many black country singers simply because country music has never given black people a constant, persistent reason to maintain it as a cultural mainstay (Ray Charles and Hootie and the Blowfish be damned), there are lots of people who just never had a reason to care about musical theatre as a thriving art form, and thus have no reason to gravitate to it.

Re: the questions of why musical theatre isn't thriving and growing like plays are, and of why it's still dominated by the "old fart white gay Jew" majority Marc Shaiman joked about?

Round up the usual suspects.

I think there are a lot things these lists expose.....

1) That "Non-commercial" (I put that in quotations because I'm not even sure what that means) shows will have an even harder chance of making it to a Broadway stage than ever before. Thats for a lot reasons, but one is that Broadway is now a full tourist market. New Yorkers used to set the trend on what was worth seeing, and they were more sophisticated then visitors because of the very nature of living in an affluent, worldly city where they challenged by things and forced to understand people different then them. Two,the price of theater and living in general has made it very hard to produce and afford tickets let alone take chances.. That's also affected the off boadway world which is basically dead as of 2018. There used to be a full market of smaller shows...lots of musicals that challenged the art form, that's now gone except for the non profits, who take the most chances these days. Producers can't even really do their jobs now, which is to market theater to people who may not understand what it is. Their job is to make something quality but maybe hard for an audience to understand a hit, a must see event. They really don't do that anymore. How do you get the next Angels in America if chances aren't taken to make sure it gets seen.

2)The classics have been exhausted. Oklahoma, a legend of the cannon for many reasons just doesn't excite the way it used to because of lots of things...but mainly because they've been exhausted and over exposed. A revival of this material needs to have a reason. That's what makes it relevant for the moment. It also shouldn't happen on the Broadway stage nearly as much. People need to want to come see the classics because they haven't seen them every year. Over producing them strips them of their quality. Now people want to see them deconstructed or cinematically as My Fair Lady.

3) The NYC government should subsidize some broadway theater. Either in New York Repertory Theater or making sure the Pulitzer Prize winner gets a classy Broadway Production every year. The reason we got the London production of Angels is because their government subsidizes theater. It's the reason we have the Ferryman too. They can do these massive 15 character shows only because of that. Considering the theater industry brings in billions for the city every year, they should give back. Keeping the theater quality and challenging is what will save it.

@standing ovation

There is a lot of mis-information in your #1. I won't go through it item by item because I don't think you are interested in disturbing your alternate reality. (Irony seems an apt word to say right about now.)

There is a lot of truth in your #2.

Good luck with #3. I think many would say that if the city has its sights on subsidizing something, the subways so folks can get to and from the theatre might be a priority.

Miles2Go2 said: "I do think next year is looking more promising, but this year (and most of last season) has made me rethink my argument that Broadway has always had lots more of dross than the opposite so this isn’t anything new. I still remain hopeful for next year...

I only made it into NYC for one June trip plus a few hours in February so I didn’t get to sample enough (plus I didn’t love everything I saw) to create a full top 10 NYC list so here’s my truncated list:

1. Angels in America
2. Three Tall Women
3. The Iceman Cometh
4. Hello, Dolly! (With Bernadette) - Yeah, I know it opened in 2017 (when it - with Bette - topped my list of 2017 shows), but it was thrilling to finally see Bernadette on stage
5. Spongebob Squarepants (whodathunkit) - yeah, I know it opened in 2017, but I didn’t see it til June.
6. The Boys in the Band
7. Skintight

Also, I experienced lots (for me) of touring/regional productions this year:

* Hamilton - Chicago
* Wicked - saw it three times while it toured through Tulsa
* When We’re Gone - new musical about London during the 14th plaque - saw twice during its premier in Oklahoma City
* Dogfight - University of Oklahoma production - my first exposure to the show which I found greatly affecting
* Book of Mormon - touring production - OKC - I laughed more than when I saw it on Broadway in 2012
* Avenue Q - college production (in conjunction with a local theater company) in Lincoln, Nebraska - first time seeing it since I saw it on tour through Tulsa years ago - loved it even more in such an intimate theater
* Les Miserables - toured through Oklahoma City this year, first time seeing it live (I was a sobbing mess during Empty Chairs at Empty Tables)
* Rent - non-equity tour/Madison, WI - not a great production as not all cast members were suited for their roles, but Angel’s death moves me more now than the first time I saw it on tour as more time has elapsed since my friends have passed."

I have to agree when it comes to Hello Dolly! I saw all three actresses, and I found Bernadette's to be the most human; she brought a warmth to Dolly. It wasn't the Bernadette show, as I thought it was when Bette Midler played the role. Plus it truly was thrilling to see her and Victor Garber on stage.

FYI: I just happen to be drinking coffee out of my Hello, Dolly! mug this morning.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BbetggCli3p/

Interesting. I loved both Bette and Bernadette, but I would not say the latter melted away at all. If anything, she leaned into her tics and mannerisms in a really delightful way. Bernadette was "Bernadette Peters" as Dolly, which I think worked perfectly.

---

Kad said: "Interesting. I loved both Bette and Bernadette, but I would not say the latter melted away at all. If anything, she leaned into her tics and mannerisms in a really delightful way. Bernadette was "Bernadette Peters" as Dolly, which I think worked perfectly."

The whole "XX played XX, but YY actually played Dolly" is a weird thing that seems to only come up with this show. I just enjoyed seeing Bette, Bernadette, AND Donna do it differently.

Well I thought all three Dollys were sublime. It's just that I felt that Bernadette's Dolly, even though she kept her own personality, just seemed more grounded in the circumstances of the piece. Bette Midler felt like Bette Midler in Hello, Dolly!, while Bernadette and Donna felt more like they were playing Dolly even if their own personality became part of the character. Just a different approach to the role and the show.