Spectacle and artistic merit- mutually exclusive?

[darquegk]

Posted: 7/16/10 at 12:05pm

In discussing spectacle and artistic merit on a Spiderman post, I ended up having sort of a question for myself and for all of you: can a show be both an artistic spectacle and still a legitimate artistic and intellectual work, or does the very act of trying hard to engage the visual senses with spectacle and stage trickery cheapen the material?

Will we ever see "the AVATAR of musicals?" I know the Lord of the Rings tried DAMN hard to do just that, but wasn't able to support itself under the massive weight of the epic plot.

[newintown]

Posted: 7/16/10 at 12:20pm

Aristotle may have been thinking about this 2300 years ago, but if someone thinks they know better, they're guilty of hubris.

Spectacle is fine, as long as it's combined with PLOT (story), THEME (meaning), CHARACTER, LANGUAGE, and MUSIC.

Of course, the qualitative evaluation of some of these elements can be subjective. There are those who think Tom Cruise is a good actor. There are some who think Jackie Collins is a good writer.

Taymor's work (to me), is great at spectacle. I think she's not very good with plot, theme, character, and language. Bono and the Edge write good catchy pop tunes that are musically elementary. If that makes you happy, fine. I like something more expert and ambitious. Their lyrics may be deep poetry to some (a really subjective discipline), but they have not yet shown a skill at storytelling or character specificity. I'm not saying they can't do this, or they can't develop this skill; but their previous work (and they aren't young) doesn't show an aptitude.

The Spiderman myth is interesting, as Marvel superhero myths (all basically the same - "how do I fit into this world, strange and different as I am? How do I fulfill my responsibilities?") go; but there isn't a lot of subtle meat there to explore.

[sweeneytodd2]

Posted: 7/16/10 at 1:06pm

Spectacle can be used to great artistic effect in the theater. Think about the tableau at the end of act one of "Sunday in the Park with George." It's a visually arresting moment that conveys its meaning much more effectively than a lyric or line of dialogue could. It doesn't matter that it's not a multimillion dollar helicopter or a belting green lady on a cherry picker, it's still spectacle. Conversely, just because something does happen to be very expensive, it doesn't mean it can't be "artistic." The Loveland sequence in Follies is pretty spectacular and was pretty damn expensive at the time.

[myshikobit]

Posted: 7/16/10 at 4:39pm

Well put, Sweeney. I think there can be. I don't think enough writers and directors study the art of musical theatre as a whole to make as many truly great musicals. People get fixated on different ends of the MT spectrum and it leads to failure. When a truly talented person studies the theatre to its core, we will be able to combine the two with a lot more ease. That said, I doubt said person is me.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 7/16/10 at 5:34pm

The idea that the two are seperate has grown lately, I think, because nobody will bother spending money on spectacle that has artistic merit. Thus these "pocket-sized" revivals. When the two intersect, nothing is more thrilling.

[chellie]

Posted: 7/16/10 at 5:47pm

I don't know that spectacle and art usually go together. Of course there are instances where it can be achieved, but I don't feel that something can often be both a huge spectacle and very artistically satisfying. Things that are created mostly for visual effect often start to feel juvenile or forced, and to create something that doesn't takes a lot of care.

And somewhat off-topic, but...

Will we ever see "the AVATAR of musicals?"

Avatar, really? It was beautiful, but the plot just rang of rehashed Pocahontas to me.

[Q]

Posted: 7/16/10 at 6:39pm

Ever seen an opera?