RENT and the AIDS movement- Page 4

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 7/3/12 at 1:19am

Very true. In fact, I think that argument can equally be made about The Normal Heart and Angels in America. While neither of these shows had the wide-spread success that Rent enjoyed, I am sure each piece educated someone about AIDS. I mean, I remember hearing from friends my ages who saw the Normal Heart revival who were incredibly moved by the show. I doubt they had any knowledge of the horrors of the AIDS epidemic, but that production gave them an understanding of it. And I think that's the power of theatre, or really just art in general. If it can affect one person or spark one conversation, it has induced some change. Maybe it's change on a minimal scale, but it's still change.

[Kad]

Posted: 7/3/12 at 1:32am

These complaints about the theatre not being "live enough" or assertions that it's a "dying artform" are not new.

Generations come and go and the SAME ISSUES WITH THE THEATRE ARE ALWAYS ADDRESSED.

And the critique leads to the creation of something new and exciting. It leads to the rejection of something old, the creation of something new, and then the amalgamation of the new and old.

The difference this time around is that a lot of criticism is coming from jaded message board posters who take off the rose-colored glasses and then do nothing.

[broadwayrob]

Posted: 7/3/12 at 11:40am

It's far easier to be cynical rather than hopeful. But I guess the lesson anyone could probably learn from that cynicism is that we should always, as audience members or performers, strive to go that extra mile when it comes to anything theatre. I think that if it weren't for the *pardon me GavestonPS* codgier theatre goers out there, people wouldn't be pushed as hard to create new things and bring new life, and new blood into those theatre doors.

As far as Rent and the impact it had on the AIDS crisis, I can say that living in West BY GOD Virginia, I didn't really have ANY knowledge of the realities of the disease *not that Rent is a story with a firm grip on reality of the true nature of the crisis*. Rent offered a window to those unaware, either by location or by choice, of a disease that killed many people in Larson's life as well as a lot of loved ones of posters on this board. We didn't know that kind of loss, and I think THAT is where Rent succeeds as being a part of the solution instead of the problem.

True, it's highly romanticized and not the finest work of theatre ever created. However, the REALITY of it, if I could be so bold, is that through the thick and thin of things, love is really the only universal gift we can give each other. It is most certainly a little cheesy. But like a brilliant pop lyricist wrote, Love is All You Need.

Hrm. That was super fluff, but it's honestly how I feel about that show.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 7/3/12 at 3:01pm

Oooh, chil'! I decide to have a life and not check in on this thread and I missed the SH*T!

Perhaps there are those who have spent a great deal of time thinking about theatre...discussing it to no end. In an academic sense. I can imagine that all that talking and thinking can lead to cynicism.

And then there are those who do theatre. Every day. In major cities and small towns. We actually see what's happening. Even if it can get lost amongst the noise of the large-scale shows, which, by the way, have a lot to recommend them. Lion King exposes people different theatrical techniques from around the world (but here we call it 'children's theatre' because they are so primal). Wicked actually shows a really expert adaptation of difficult source material into something different, but still vivid. And to be able to watch Hal Prince's beautiful staging of Phantom is something I'm grateful that I can still do. But, even amongst that, we sometimes are lucky to get shows like Caroline, or Change. Big flop, right? But without that Broadway production, it wouldn't be done all over the country, moving diverse audiences. New York was just lucky to see The Honeycomb Trilogy, a six month project that presented three full-length science fictions plays by Mac Rogers to tell the story of things falling apart and being rebuilt. It was heaven...and caused really talented people who haven't gotten a break to get buzz they so richly deserve. I'm willing to bet that many colleges across the countyr will start to tackle this difficult and exciting work, expanding the boundaries of theatre even further.

I'm always surprised when I head out of town to do a play or musical by the number of young people who go. But these theatre make it their mission to expose kids to theatre so that they'll be enticed to come back. Yes...we all sometimes deride the student matinees as 'Creature Features'. But, as far as I'm concerned, they're the most important shows I do.

To argue that theatre is dying or that it has no relevance doesn't show how much you know of the world. I think it shows how myopic that worldview is. Because it is simply not the case for many, many theatre professionals that I know.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/3/12 at 4:30pm

Well, now that we have decided I am both overly romantic and too cynical, I suppose the question is settled. However, calling me a "codger" goes too far! I'm sure the poster in question meant "provocateur", and, there, I may be guilty.

But for the record, I am not opposed to amplification of sound, turn-tables or computers per se. I am skeptical of the result when the electronics are allowed to take over the show. How much is too much is, of course, a question of taste. What is "Hal Prince's beautiful staging of Phantom" to RobbieJ is pure schlock to me, and not even honest schlock at that. And in my comparison of one production of LES MIZ to one production of FOLLIES, it was precisely the way the electronics were used that made the difference. What do I care how much machinery was actually employed (though, for the record, the few set pieces were moved manually in FOLLIES)?

I am not yearning sentimentally for the theater of my youth. (I'd sure like to have Michael Bennett, Bob Fosse, Gower Champion and Jerome Robbins back, but wouldn't we all?) It was in my youth, believe it or not, when the megamusical became popular and came to dominate the musical theater. (Some of the geniuses I mentioned above actually and inadvertently helped to give theater more spectacle and less content.) So I don't actually remember earlier times, despite my decrepitude.

***

Kad, yes, Broadway has long been called the "Fabulous Invalid" and the many predictions of its demise were invariably premature. But that was primarily a financial conversation. Although the trend for some time has favored fewer productions running for longer periods, I made no such prediction of commercial crisis. I have been talking about a sea change in favor of electronic entertainment and how theater only suffers when it tries to compete on the terms of more popular media.

***

And for the record, RobbieJ, there is no inherent conflict between thinking about theater and performing it. In fact, some of us think the two should go hand-in-hand. But even if there were a conflict, one might still argue that the insulated band of "doers" needs occasional input and challenge from the "thinkers".

I think creating theater can matter in the same way volunteering at a soup kitchen can matter. And both are commendable. But the thread started with the question, "did RENT give voice to the AIDS movement." Most people said "No" because RENT came along too late. I say, "Besides that, ours is no longer a culture that gets its primary information from live theater."



Updated On: 7/3/12 at 04:30 PM

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 7/3/12 at 4:51pm

Yes...and no one would argue with that statement. Well...I mean, I suppose some would. But your unpacking of that statement led to some more cynical statments about the inability of theatre to change the world. And I suppose on a macro level, you're right. But on the micro level, that's just not the case. Or at least...that's not the case in my experience as a theatre artist in New York City (who also gets to travel to the 'hinterlands' as well). Which is why I generally try (and sometimes fail) to avoid making sweeping comments and pronouncements on the theatre. Because your experience of it, while valid, is still a tiny, insular experience...as is mine. And for every story you have, a bunch of us have different stories from our own experience that contradict what you say. Of course RENT didn't give voice to the AIDS movement. Nor was that even the show's intent. But you countered the grand question with a grand pronouncement, which is why a lot of people took exception.

I also personally get rankled when people seem to conflate Broadway with theatre. They are not the same. One is a subset of the other...a limited one at that. And I happen to agree that Phantom is scholck. The material is awful. But Hal Prince (doing what he's done so many times in the past) created beautiful stage pictures and grand staging to turn a terribly written operetta into something that was thrilling to watch. Think what you want about the material, but the showmanship displayed by Prince is, as far as I'm concerned, above reproach.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/3/12 at 5:06pm

Well, when you put it that way, Robbie, I suppose I have to agree that without Prince's stage pictures to look at, POTO would have been even duller. To be clear, I grew up idolizing Prince, my husband worked for him for several years, etc. and so forth. I am not a Prince hater. But with PHANTOM, I felt he pushed for a cinematic feeling at the expense of the theatrical illusion itself.

But perhaps, as you say, he was trying to compensate for deficiencies in the writing.

***

I don't actually conflate Broadway with all theater, but this is the "Broadway" board and Broadway is usually our point of reference here. Of course, I realize that somewhere in the woods of the Czech Republic, the next Grotowski may already be hard at work.

But as you must know from working outside NYC, Broadway, and in particular the Broadway musical, is what most Americans still think of when they hear the word "theater". The sad truth is that many cities get replicas of Broadway shows placed into theaters two and three times as large; so the remoteness of which I speak is even greater.

Finally, I would repeat that the grandiosity did not start with me. It began with a question as to whether a Broadway musical "gave a voice" to a worldwide epidemic. There followed a discussion about timing, rather than the limits of theater's influence. I merely jumped in at what was then the current level of grandiose claims.

And it was in that context I said "theater doesn't matter." Now I was in part being provocative, but I was also being factual that at the level of worldwide news, theater does not have much of an impact. (Not even Grotowski.)

If you want to talk about influence on an individual level, then, yes, theater changed my life and continues to do so. It's odd to be judged a "cynic" when I've been working at something for 40 years for relatively little money.

But to be clear, the above is a clarification not a complaint. Despite my contrariness, I have not been mistreated here.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/3/12 at 5:16pm

RobbieJ, I reread your last post because it is so well worded.

Yes, macro v. micro.

Macro: Theater is not the dominating art form it was in Ancient Greece or during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries in Europe. Painting no longer dominates the way it did in the Renaissance and then from 1870 to 1920.

The 20th century was dominated by film and, if AMERICAN IDOL doesn't kill it off, it appears that video will dominate this century.

But because it is a relatively limited art form and its aficionados congregate at boards such as this one, it is very easy to become insular and imagine that theater has far more influence than it actually does in the culture as a whole.

Micro: But that doesn't mean that painting, like theater, doesn't continue to change individual lives, just as theater changed yours and mine.

(To give credit where credit is due, FindingNamo also said this pages ago.)



Updated On: 7/3/12 at 05:16 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/4/12 at 1:58am

Yes, but you still seem to be missing that real change happens on the micro level. At least, I think your crack about the butterfly flapping the wings seemed to be your rejection of any change at all being possible or even mattering.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/4/12 at 7:06am

Aw, come on, Namo! My "Butterfly Effect" joke was funny and you know it!

But since you made the claim, the burden of proof is yours. What is the important change (however small) effected by 26 years of PHANTOM OF THE OPERA? Your offer of proof may be hypothetical, of course. This (I hope) remains a friendly conversation.

As Brecht once argued, theater that doesn't challenge our understanding of the status quo actually does further harm by convincing us that the status quo is unchangeable. British political playwright and essayist, John McGrath, has written similar arguments very convincingly and at greater length.

Fewer than 1 in 4 people attend a live performance of a play in any given year. (Source: NEA) That includes theater at all levels, including high school drama productions. Of those, 3 out of 5 (same source) attend musicals. I don't have a source but I'll wager that the vast majority attending musicals see large-scale, formerly or currently commercial musicals, not politically challenging experimental works off-off-Broadway.

In that context, my question about the good done by POTO is appropriate, I think. (We'll agree it has employed hundreds of people during 4 decades and that is a good thing; but if they weren't working at PHANTOM, most would presumably find jobs elsewhere.)

My question is even more to the point now that the same megamusicals occupy the same real estate for decades, preventing more challenging works from using that space.

Updated On: 7/4/12 at 07:06 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/4/12 at 8:34am

Art matters. It just does.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/4/12 at 12:35pm

Gaveston, did you used to have a different screen name before last month?

I don't even know if you're being willfully obtuse, but I am not going to be manipulated into discussing Phantom of the Opera's world changing ability or lack thereof because THAT'S NOT WHAT I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.

[darquegk]

Posted: 7/4/12 at 1:17pm

I've heard ultimatum-like responses to these questions many times before:

"All good theatre is political or revolutionary in some sense. If theatre does not advocate for change, it has no reason to exist."

"West Side Story set the bar artistically, and has not yet been surpassed. Any show that does not seek to exceed the artistic mastery of West Side Story is a musical by slackers and for sluggards." (from Musicals.net, years and years ago)

And yet, theatre of both kinds continues to thrive. Not ALL theatre has to be revolutionary masterwork. Sometimes, it's okay for art to just entertain, and even entertain just a little bit. Not all films have to be, need to be, or even SHOULD be the next Citizen Kane. There's a place for "Crazy Stupid Love" too.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/4/12 at 4:06pm

Gaveston, did you used to have a different screen name before last month?

I don't even know if you're being willfully obtuse, but I am not going to be manipulated into discussing Phantom of the Opera's world changing ability or lack thereof because THAT'S NOT WHAT I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.

Namo, I had a problem with my logon a couple of weekends ago and had to reregister. But I only changed from Gaveston2 to GavestonPS. I have not recently or ever used an alternate hat for purposes of deception. I'm obviously willing to make a fool of myself, but lie? Not so much.

Forget POTO, then. I only chose it as an example because it's the longest running show and has presumably been seen by the most people. It certainly wasn't supposed to be some sort of rhetorical trap.

I am genuinely trying to understand your point of view. What are the small changes effected by theater that lead to significant change?

***

Also yours, pal joey. When a photo of a painting is chosen because it matches the sofa, does it also matter as art? Decoration, I suppose, but as art?

***

I'm sorry if I seem "willfully obtuse", Namo. It's more likely I'm just "plain-old, regular obtuse".

[Bwaydide92]

Posted: 7/4/12 at 4:13pm

darquegk, I agree. Theatre is a great activist voice and can really bring change. It's just that when productions seem to not be for that night's audience that theatre loses its magic. Sometimes productions seem like they're going on because that's what they're supposed to do. It stops being fresh and becomes stale. Even if it's just supposed to be entertaining, it should still be performed and created with vitality and freshness EVERY SINGLE NIGHT.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/4/12 at 4:17pm

darquegk, if an alien from outer space suddenly landed and read your post, he would assume we are surrounded by so much challenging theatrical work that you just had to stand up and defend the occasional bit of escapist fluff.

If only!

But if we actually took him to the commercial theater, he would most likely encounter performers bouncing around like herky-jerky marionettes controlled by a mad puppeteer.

So try not to worry.

But if Namo is right that real change occurs in small ways. Then what change happens to viewers who sit through musical after musical that appears to be an overly long aerobics class?

(ETA and just for the record, I'm not opposed to romantic comedies and I recognize they take great skill to do well. Brecht's idea was that theater should promote a critical attitude in the viewer (and, yes, he tended to define "critical" in political terms), but even he found the medium wasn't very effective in getting the spectator to do a specific thing, such as vote one way or another. I see no reason why a romantic comedy can't challenge us in some way without becoming pedantic.)

Updated On: 7/4/12 at 04:17 PM

[After Eight]

Posted: 7/4/12 at 4:23pm

"Decoration, I suppose, but as art? "

Oh, my heavens!

The ridiculousness, the utter vacuity of thought flowing in an unending stream from this source...

Aubusson, Sèvres, Boucher, Fragonard, art nouveau....

It's just too ludicrous, too ludicrous for words.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/4/12 at 5:11pm

Ah, yes, After Eight is here for his daily, drive-by "fruiting" (to borrow a phrase from MRS. DOUBTFIRE).

A8, a distinction between decoration and art is not my personal invention. They are not mutually exclusive categories, but neither are they automatically the same thing.

Feel free to contribute if you ever have something to add.

Updated On: 7/4/12 at 05:11 PM

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 11:40am

Gaveston, I think you're asking Namo to answer a question that he has no desire to argue. He and I have tried to make the point that theatre exists far beyond the reach of the large scale mega-musicals. And you seem to be focusing on these musicals in your argument. I've offered what value I think there is in Phantom (the staging by Prince), as well as Wicked and Lion King. But I think the value of Wicked, Lion King and Rent goes far beyond whatever artistic merit these shows may have. I think Rent, in particular, made theatre accessible to an audience that was being ignored before it...the teen and twentysomething crowd. Wicked has capitalized on that even further. Now, we have Book of Mormon that appeals to an even stranger theatrical demographic: young men (straight, at that). I think Rent showed that Broadway could appeal to people under the age of 50. And, if you look at what is on Broadway right now, we have The Lion King, which is appropriate for even young children. Wicked goes right for the tween and teen demo and Book of Mormon taps into the twenty and thirty-something set. When I first started seeing Broadway shows (1986), there wasn't that kind of progression. Now...I could argue that that is not a good thing. My first three Broadway shows were Sweet Charity, A Chorus Line and Dreamgirls. Not long after, I was exposed to Sondheim for the first time in Into the Woods. This formed my tastes, and I'm happy that I was exposed to 'adult' material when I was 12/13. But I'm currently watching my 12 year old niece discover theatre. And I'm happy she was able to see Lion King at a young age to whet her appetite...and she's a big fan of Wicked now. I'll be interested in seeing how her tastes develop. And I think that is a very good change.

[Jane2]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 11:57am

Gaveston, I'd like to comment on the "does it count as art" topic.

The painting that was chosen for its colors is already art. Now, when it's chosen because it matches the couch is a sin many are guilty of, including art aficionados.

Can't the piece be appreciated as a work of art at the same time as contributing to the enhancement of a room?

Edited to say that I really shouldn't have said it was a sin to choose a painting because it matches the couch. Let me change that to it's a decision that many make,

Updated On: 7/5/12 at 11:57 AM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 4:04pm

I knew what you meant, Jane, and didn't take the word "sin" literally. And, no, I don't think it's any great crime to color-coordinate one's decor. (It gives a bland result much of the time, but that's not a crime.)

To answer your question, yes, the same work may begin as art, become a thoughtless couch accessory and then become art again when seen by a new viewer. (Could we have a better example of this than Van Gogh over the past century?)

And the same theater production may be challenging and enlightening to some, but not to others.

My point has been merely that we make broad statements about theater's ability to foment change, enlighten the mind and uplift the soul. And, frankly, praising the medium also serves to pat ourselves on the back and congratulate ourselves as theatergoers for our good taste.

So I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask how, when and where about all of these extraordinary claims. But from the reaction here, you'd think I'd bought a Van Gogh reproduction to match the sofa!

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 4:13pm

"My point has been merely that we make broad statements about theater's ability to foment change, enlighten the mind and uplift the soul. And, frankly, praising the medium also serves to pat ourselves on the back and congratulate ourselves as theatergoers for our good taste."

Which is just plain weird, coming from somebody who projects more than a multiplex.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 4:20pm

So it appears, Robbie, so it appears. And of course Namo is under no obligation to respond to any post of mine.

However, HE has been telling ME for several pages that I DON'T UNDERSTAND how "real change" occurs. Why is it unreasonable of me to ask him what "real change" means?

***

As for your post, I'm glad you had those experiences. I don't have any particular beef against any of those shows, but neither do I find any of the more recent shows especially transformative. I taught college freshmen and women during almost the entire run of RENT and my experience was that it inspired young people to attend RENT, over and over, not necessarily the theater in general. Not that that's a bad thing (I thought RENT was OK when I saw it), and no doubt there were individuals who transferred their love of one show to a love of shows in general.

But I'm suspicious of broad claims for the power of RENT. It presents itself as a cry against commercialism and I just can't see how commercialism has declined since the advent of the show.

If you or Namo want to make a point about theater that isn't large and commercial, who has stopped you? I've been using large musicals as examples because (a) that's what most people see, and (b) we all know them.

But the more we talk about small theaters in downtown Manhattan or on the Westside of Los Angeles, the more we end up back at my point that the culture as a whole has left theater largely off the map.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 4:25pm

And I think some people (ME) have taken the time to put into words the how something like RENT changed things in some way. You can disagree with me...but you haven't. You just keep saying no one has answered your exceedingly broad statement.

To go with a more personal story, I was in world premiere cast of URINETOWN in the NY International Fringe Festival. I witnessed firsthand how one show could change the entire perception of a Festival, lending it legitimacy which led to the development of other festivals (NYMF, perhaps) which has led to more opportunities for artists who have gone on to create Tony-winning and Pulitzer-winning work. Now...there may be a SH*T-ton of people who would disagree with what I just said. And that's fine. But people are answering you.

Theatre should ALWAYS uplift or challenge the audience. But that's nebulous. That is alchemy. And no...RENT did not give voice to the AIDS movement. But it broadened Broadway's potential audience. URINETOWN didn't change the culture. But it changed the way musicals could be developed.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/5/12 at 4:27pm

Which is just plain weird, coming from somebody who projects more than a multiplex.

I can't tell you how sad it makes me, FindingNamo, that I have offended you and you seem to feel there is some sort of personal disagreement between us. I'm sure the fault is mine and I am so very sorry.

But I hope you will believe me that if I ask what you mean, I ask because I respect your opinion and I honestly want to know.