I think you're really missing two things, lensman. One is that there is an edit function so you can add to your messages, no need to post after yourself multiple times. And the other is that, although the thread is about Phantom of the Opera, it has evolved in such a way as it's not really ABOUT Phantom of the Opera. That's the thing about discussion boards. The discussions change and evolve. If you read the thread, most people have gone out of their way to say, "If you like it, great!" I've done that more than once.
What you like is all a matter of taste and exposure. But it does seem as if some people go see a show again and again and again and they aren't getting exposed to anything new. And their taste reflects that.
If you have a great time at Phantom, terrific! If I had invested as much money as some fans do for the same show, I'd probably convince myself that not only was it great time, but it was a great work. But that ain't necessarily so.
And for me, personally, the fact that the hype made the '80s mega-musicals these juggernauts that overtook the all-time longest running show records is annoying. Once, in my lifetime, the longest running musical of all-time on Broadway was a really great show, A Chorus Line. It was an original work, not based on a story in the public domain (Phantom, Les Miz). Chorus Line's "special effects," as a matter of fact its entire design, amounted to a white stripe on the stage and a panel of revolving mirrors. That's it. In no way did it resemble an elaborate theme park ride.
It was up to the actors to sing and dance and tell their stories, and it was the rare instance of a fairly substantial work connecting with a large audience, who could relate to this specific story. That, to me, is a sign of great work.
I chimed in because someone intimated that Les Miz had a long run because of hype and POTO's long run was somehow not because of the very same thing. But the point I have most wanted to make is that in these days of mega-hype, using the argument "How can the show be bad if it has run 16 years?" just doesn't hold water. Go back and read the thread, people have answered that. Hype. Familiarity (at this point POTO's a franchise like Burger King). And the odd tendency in our culture to decide that to prove we love a show, we have to keep going back to it again and again.
I would urge the people who have the kind of money to see POTO ten, 20 or 30 times and have plans to see it again, to take that money and take a chance on something new. Once. I know it will cause you anxiety to go to something that you haven't heard of like you had heard of POTO (that's the hype), but expand your horizons, support new art, find out how magic can happen without bombastic effects and theme park displays.
P.S. Etoile hit the nail so squarely on the head for me with the line: "Theater is the art of language where words are choosen for their precise meaning."
It strikes me as LOLable when people say, "Why should I take the time to write something different," or "It's not how you say it but the sincerity behind it." It just doesn't make sense tho, since every time discussions get juicy on here people say "Hey! This is a board about theater lovers and we should be talking about theater." Why haven't these theater lovers been inspired to investigate and use language in more artful ways? Is theater, as an art form, dying if it can't connect in any way other than as a place for people to find every single show amazing and to join the cults of the personalities on stage? WHAT ABOUT THE ART?
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
Updated On: 8/17/03 at 10:40 AM
I also agree with you about some people. No names.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
