I remember when discussing theater meant Tennessee Williams, Arthur Miller, Rogers & Hammerstein, Leonard Bernstein .... now, it's Disney cartoons.
How patronizing and reductive. August Wilson, Edward Albee, Sam Shepard, Tony Kushner, Tom Stoppard, Sarah Ruhl, Paula Vogel, Wendy Wasserstein, David Ives, Christopher Durang, Brian Friel, John Guare, Terrance McNally, Stephen Sondheim, Kander and Ebb, Kopit and Yeston, Ahrens and Flaherty, Cy Coleman, Stephen Schwartz, Andrew Lloyd Webber, William Finn, Jonathan Larson, Elton John, Schoenberg and Boublil, Jason Robert Brown, Adam Guettel, Michael John LaChiusa, David Yazbeck, Shaiman and Wittman, Robert Lopez, David Henry Hwang, Richard Greenberg, Nora Ephron, Harvey Fierstein, John Leguizamo, John Patrick Shanley, Yasmina Reza, Michael Frayn, David Hare, Jeanine Tesori, Lin Manuel Miranda, Martin McDonagh, Alfred Uhry, Tracy Letts, Conor McPherson, Pasek and Paul, Kitt and Yorkey...AND Disney cartoons. Is it always "or"? Is it never "and"?
"Discussing theatre" means discussing theatre and "theatre" has never been about only one thing. Stepping into the wayback machine is only indicative of nostalgia. Like every other art form, theatre grows and evolves. Musical theatre adapted comic strips with Li'l Abner in 1956 and films in 1957 with Hazel Flagg (there may have been others earlier, but those are the ones I can think of at the moment). "Cartoons", as an art form, have also evolved and grown, so the notion that the adaptation of animated films as live theatrical works half a century past the peak of the Golden Age really doesn't seem so ridiculous.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
Updated On: 11/20/18 at 08:52 AM