SIMONIZED -- The Wit & Wisdom of John Simon- Page 2

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 5:05pm

Margo, all I remember thinking is, which way to the exit?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 5:05pm

Or the big Act One closer, "A Blank Sheet of Paper"

[sean martin]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 5:05pm

Matt raises an excellent point. I've been collecting cast albums for most of my life, and I gotta tell you: if I buy one today, it's really gotta sell me. I've listened to JANE EYRE once, WICKED maybe twice (with a lot of fast forwarding). I have yet to get all the way through RENT or the revival of NINE. The shows today just seem mechanically put together to get the best possible tourist bang for the buck -- it seems (and this is just my opinion, guys) we're not seeing any Gershwins or Porters or Hammersteins these days, just a lot of serious flash to keep an otherwise weak production (like TMM, for example) afloat.

But you could arguably say that about almost any performance art form: we make "blockbuster films!" that last as long as it takes for the merchandise to move at Wal-Mart. Sure, there are moments of real achievement, like the LOTR trilogy, but how often does something like that actually happen?

This isn't suggesting Broadway is dead. It's just another stop on the tourist train now, that's all. I used to think of B'way as *the* place for technical and artistic achievement, but for the past four or five seasons, I've been hardpressed to really think of something worth remembering... well, except for the guy who played the villian in URBAN COWBOY, but that's another story for another time, methinks. :)

Again, just my o.o2. YMMV.

[Broadway Matt]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 5:27pm

i agree, sean, and I really hope you're right about this just being a phase in musical theatre's history. i wouldn't be able to keep a positive outlook at the theatre if I wasn't able to just write this period off a one of "disposable entertainment" in all forms. i have no idea how it'll get better but I still have faith that it will. the only solutions I can think of aren't too plausible- either eliminating the greed of the production companies or the crappy taste of the public. but my vision is limited by my lack of ability to influence either right now. i suppose we'll all keep fighting the good fight, for "in the skyline the only limit is the sky!"

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 5:29pm

Speed, dear....
I was being ironical.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 5:31pm

Matt, you must add to the "greed of the production companies," the "greed of the unions and theater owners."

[Broadway Matt]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 5:52pm

ahh thanks rath, i was having trouble singling out the various pieces of the greed machine at work. let's say it's the "greed of the people at every level of the production and administrative side" Not every component is totally guilty i'm sure, but enough so the chain effect is visible. i say we start with those greedy b*stards at ticketmaster and just start administering spankings.

[Speed]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 5:58pm

Thanks Master. I misunderstood.

[sean martin]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 6:25pm

Well, now that we've successsfully derailed the thread, I'll ask: Is it greed or desperation? Look at how much it costs to produce a musical these days -- if anything, now you have to have a sure-fire hit that'll pay for itself within the first six months. If you want to stay working in this field (and who doesnt), does it simply mean that the market has changed the rules?

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 6:33pm

This has been discussed here many times before...the demands of the unions and theater owners have driven the ticket prices to crazy heights...forcing audiences to make decisions based on what they feel is actually worth those prices. For most, familiarity gives them some encouragement. So, basing a show on a successful film, and/or hiring a celebrity assures the theatergoers that they aren't gambling with their $100.

[Broadway Matt]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 6:43pm

right. so should it be assumed that the lack of artistic quality is the result of the admin desperately trying to stay afloat in the volatile market? or is the decline in quality what initially caused them to shift the focus toward the more expensive aspects, just to have something to sell? as with so many things that can't be easily figured out, it's the damn chicken and egg.

i do think that it isn't out of lack of original material being created. there are plenty of scores and books being written that could possibly be huge if given the right workshop time and resources. so it would appear to be the producers' unwillingness to take risks with new ideas and talents. at the same time, every one of them wants to discover the next groundbreaking show or breakout star. but how to do that without taking a chance? easy! just build an expensive set and turn up the sound system! besides, all that workshop time and tryout period would cost a bunch more money. why bother, right? why dump money on the actual show, when you can throw it into the stuff that the 20-minute attention span public will be able to process and enjoy. why spend the cash honing the next intelligent masterwork when so much of the public won't be able to sit thru it without special effects and nudity?

[Plum]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 6:47pm

It's less chicken and egg than flower and hummingbird.

[Broadway Matt]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 6:52pm

i don't know, my head hurts and this is depressing me. i need to get into a better mood before I see "Night, Mother" in an hour, or that play's gonna ruin my week.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 7:04pm

The producers are unwilling to take risks because "risk" doesn't sell anymore. And if the tickets don't sell, the bills don't get paid.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 7:10pm

But the stuff they see as "mainstream" or "unrisky" isn't exactly selling all the time, either. Thoroughly Modern Millie, for example, never recouped its investment, while the far weirder Urinetown did. I still say that people will go see quality things. Not all quality things, admittedly. But the "unwashed masses" aren't totally tasteless all the time.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 7:14pm

That's true, Plum, but rare. Imagine you are a producer, putting on a show that costs $10 mil, you have to account for every cent, and it's your responsibility to recoup for your investors.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 7:17pm

Like I said, what ever happened to trusting the audience to some extent?

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 7:22pm

Trust doesn't pay the huge bills. Producers have to look at recent historical evidence in order to decide what is likely to pay. I'm sure most producers did not get into the business just to raise money and pay bills, but that is what the business has turned into. I believe that most producers got into producing because they love theater and were eager to bring quality to Broadway. But the demands of unions and theater owners have made that extremely difficult.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 7:29pm

I dunno. I look at what new musicals have recouped recently, and I see The Producers- big old-fashioned musical comedy with some irony and Mel Brooks style added in; Urinetown and Avenue Q- two small, quirky shows from other NY venues; The Boy From Oz- a star vehicle, plain and simple; Mamma Mia- a jukebox musical with an extremely heavy dose of audience-winking...anyway, there isn't a definite pattern there, unless you count the fact that all of them but BFO had varying doses of irony woven in.

[sean martin]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 7:43pm

Both URINETOWN and AVENUE Q started off-B and moved there, which means they could build up word of mouth. Had it *started* on Broadway, Urinetown might have lasted a few months, but not much longer, IMHO. Maybe that's the secret with the riskier material? Start elsewhere and let the momentum build before making the hugely expensive leap to B'way?

BTW: it's not just the theatre owners and the unions. Let's not forget the city and its various taxes, utility companies, fabrication houses -- everything these days is a big ticket item that has to be paid if the show is gonna stay open.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 10/23/04 at 7:47pm

Right, Sean. If we're going to break everything down, remember that there are also marketing costs, including a press agency, general managers, show and office staff, and office space rent. All extremely large expenses in themselves.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 5/10/05 at 7:06pm

In honor of Simon's long overdue demise, I thought it must be time to bump this thread back up to the top. Enjoy!

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 5/10/05 at 7:09pm

I assume it would be printed on a piece of confetti with room to spare.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 5/10/05 at 7:56pm

Here's my view on Simon (and all critics for that matter):

If a performer sucks, it's a critic's job to say so. And if someone's not the right physical type (i.e. Danielle Ferland in the above mentioned "Tartuffe"), it's their job to point that out as well. HOWEVER...there is a certain "nice way" to say things in a public forum, and curtesy is just as important as honesty. And hey, "everyone's a little bit racist"--and I'm sure Simon was not the only person sitting at "It 'Aint Nothing But the Blues" thinking those things...but it's one thing to think that, and another to print it. And even if, as a heterosexual man, things like "The Most Fabulous Story Ever Told" don't interest him, there's a much more appropriate way to convey to a reader that they may not be in the target audience of the play.

So, in summary: it's important to be honest, and a certain amount of bluntness is, I think, all right, but one should always be respectful of one's fellow human beings.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 5/10/05 at 8:01pm

Agreed but all it is, & ever will be , is one person's opinion. Just because one or more people who never did what they are criticizing say someone is good or not does not make it so