ShowBusiness DVDs- Page 4

[misschung]

Posted: 10/31/07 at 8:22pm

I agree with your point about the internet. Actually, one of the things that I wanted them to discuss, primarily regarding Taboo, was how the internet contributed to what the critics were saying. And the whole emergence of unofficial critics (aka, us) and the effect they have on those involved in a show.

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/31/07 at 8:40pm

This documentary had a terrific chance to show how things are changing, and VERY quickly now. Perceptions of critics, criticisms, of major awards, and of the business itself.

It could have shown us the "old school" perceptions of "big reviews" and a Best Musical Tony win as the ultimate goal, and then shown us how and why this just isn't necessarily relevant anymore.

And they picked the perfect season to focus on.

...and then just slapped some dated, textbook, "old school" philosophy onto it, and tried to make it fit into that mold.

But it didn't.

The truth is right there... on Broadway now... yelling LOUDLY at the Gershwin Theatre. "Sitting down" (not just touring) in other major cities across the U.S.

And the fangirls are winning this one. And the grandmas are going too. And the obsessed fans who post bootleg clips on youtube, and show up with green faces.

And those illegal clips aren't being yanked down as quickly anymore. Why? Because they're HELPING the show find its audience. People who watch it on a tiny 4x3-inch screen, or even at home on DVD, aren't satisfied. They have to get into a theatre and see LIVE, up there on stage.

This is a new age we're entering into now, and the average folks with their blogs, and message board posts and their bootleg clips are creating the "phenomenon" themselves, without guidance, or supposedly knowledgeable experts in the field... and this doc called "Show Business" could have been right there on the cutting edge with it.

Showing the good AND the bad of this current situation.

But no.

[Rotel1026]

Posted: 10/31/07 at 9:32pm

I don't think the producers of the documentary really knew what they should focus on. It is mentioned in the commentary that originally, Cummings was going to act as narrator. They got all sorts of crazy access to the development of these shows and in the end, they just didn't seem to know how to cut it up and really focus it so they chose to focus on what they did. Essentially, a year in the life with the big day at the end being the Tony's. I'm sure there was a great documentary to be had if they could have just focused it more. They could have probably made 4 better documentaries if they had just made a separate documentary that chronicled the creative process for each show individually.

And it still drives me a little nutty that they never bother to mention Boy From Oz considering it was one of the shows that was nominated for Best Musical that year.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 11/3/07 at 12:06am

I watched it tonight and just want to echo what Best12Bars posted.

Very disappointing.

[gettinhep]

Posted: 11/3/07 at 1:02am

I do agree, Miss P.

It is as though they promise a banquet and barely feed you the appetiser.

Distorted images are created by their concentration on the four shows. Watching this documentary, you would swear that there were only two decent performances given during the season. And as for that coffee klatch of critics...

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 11/3/07 at 1:29am

Maybe the critics should have had a little more wine with their whine!!!!

[gettinhep]

Posted: 11/3/07 at 1:31am

It couldn't hurt.

[misschung]

Posted: 11/3/07 at 1:00pm

just was on you tube and ran in to great footage of sierra singing part of your world at one of the performances its just not audio its the real thing and the set looked cool and who ever was taping it looked professional heres the link just type in "part of your world'-sierra boggess. please read this before it gets deleated.

Updated On: 11/3/07 at 01:00 PM

[jv92]

Posted: 11/7/07 at 5:00pm

I got it from Amazon yesterday and watched it last night. I really enjoyed it. It was well put together. The most enjoyable segments were of Avenue Q and Caroline, not only because they were better than the other two shows focused on, but because the creative team and cast of both shows seemed to be keener on allowing the documentary crew into their backstage world. I had seen the footage of Tabbo and Wicked in rehearsals and so forth before. On a less possitive note, it sickened me to watch the Wicked fangirls (and fanboys) crying at the record signing, making bears for the cast, dressing up in character, etc. The Taboo closing night freaks also rather sickened me. I always found people the dress up in costume to go to the theatre were rather pathetic. I loved Grey Gardens and Light in the Piazza. I never showed up as Little Edie or Margaret Johnson at a performance. I thought the film was much to kind to Taboo. Of course every one is entitled to their opinion, but I must disagree with their closing night interviewee. There is such a thing as a show being "too gay." I'm not trying to be homophobic here. Grey Gardens is perfectly gay and perfectly wonderful. Taboo was vulgar and outlandishly gay. I suppose it has to do with writing as well. The Tony segment brought back the excitement of that night. The critics segments were interesting. It was great seeing Stephen Sondheim getting his tie fixed outside of Studio 54.
I think it really captures this era on Broadway well and will be a wonderful resource to future generations. If only people in the 50s, 60s and 70s made films like this!

[jv92]

Posted: 11/7/07 at 5:11pm

"My question is: How does Michael Riedel get invited to ANY theatre parties and why is he even welcome in ANY theatre circles? Is anyone even actually nice to the man? His soul must be black from all of his hatred and bile. He's a waste of air."

I don't think the theatre should be lovey-dovey, puppies and rainbows, etc., but Riedel is quite nasty. I don't really enjoy reading him. He always makes me uncomfortable when watching Theatre Talk. The only person in theatre who has said anything really good about him is Elaine Stritch and as much as I love her, if he had been writing for the Post 30 years ago, I doubt she'd like him so much.
All of his collumns seem to have a conservative angle (He does write for the Post, though) which pisses me off being a liberal, but I do admire that he does (or is it Susan Haskins) invite political playwrights and authors, in many cases liberal ones onto the program and tries to have an interesting political discussion. An episode of the show with David Hare in the recent past was quite interesting. The episode with liberal comentator and biographer Neal Gabler on his exceptional Disney biography was wonderful. So unlike many conservatives, he does seem to enjoy discussing politics and world events with people that may disagree with his views.
How does he get invited to parites? I don't know. Either he shows up or people like the attention he gives to them in the Post.
I will say one thing, I'd much rather have him review plays for the Post than Old Man Barnes. When will that old fart croak already?! He's been a waste of energy since he called Hair revolutionary!
Updated On: 11/7/07 at 05:11 PM

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 11/7/07 at 5:11pm

Yup, jv92. I find this documentary to be our generation's version of the BROADWAY: THE GOLDEN AGE documentary.

For all the good and bad -- its a time capsule of what our Broadway reality is today, what with the advent of the internet, et al.

Word-of-mouth is now shared instantly/minute-by-minute...as opposed to decades ago when it was virtually impossible to hear about anything unless you knew someone, etc. We now here about out-of-town tryout performances as they happen. Years ago...you just 'heard' things.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 11/7/07 at 5:19pm

Brody, I don't understand how the documentary is a time capsule, when it doesn't reference the internet at all. I think that is what many posters felt dissatisfied about, was that the documentary presented an antiquated version of the process of a theatre piece from rehearsals to the Tonys with huge gaps in narrative and so much focus on the critics.

[jv92]

Posted: 11/7/07 at 5:23pm

Yes, there were huge gaps(Q's Tony Campaign especially!) but what other documentary has captured the theatre district of a certain era, theatre personalities of a certain era, the theatre in general of a certain era as vividly as this? The only one I can think of is the Company Cast Album film.

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 11/7/07 at 5:29pm

I do recall Reidel making references to how message boards now spread news quicker as to what is happening during previews/out-of-town tryouts, etc. I can clearly see him saying all this and also commenting how message board posters are now the new critics, etc.

I guess I need to watch the documentary a few more times.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 11/7/07 at 5:34pm

I believe Reidel says "and then there's the internet...but we won't even go there." I believe that was all he said. I'm not sure. Most critics have to be threatened.

I just think the online world is such a huge piece of the theatre world now. As you mentioned Brody, the wealth of information that is afforded us from all over the country and the world from rehearsals, tryouts, and previews is staggering. It can't be overlooked. The anonymity of the creative and revision process is all but lost.