Theatre as Art or Entertainment?

Personally, I'm all for theatre as art. I think theatre should say something and have a specific point of view. I think, because of the medium, that it lends itself more to being bold and thought provoking. I don't enjoy theatre as fluff. That's not to say I only like serious musicals, there are plenty of musicals that can be "light and fluffy" but they still have a very serious meaning behind them.

How do you feel? Do you prefer entertainment or art?

I agree with you, however, i think that in order to get a playwright's or director's or even an actor's point across, the show needs to be somewhat entertaining...

---

I much prefer theater as an art. IMO, a show fares better if puts a point across to the audience, even if there is a lot of fluff. Shows with a confused message tend to be boring and unmemorable.

owch for DefyingGravity11

As long as it's not THE WEDDING SINGER, I'll take either and both.

"Entertainment" like that of THE WEDDING SINGER does not have a $110 price tag.

---

Updated On: 12/5/06 at 09:53 PM

Its both, obviously. Thats what makes it so fabulous. I mean, its obvious that some shows are just made for entertainment while others are true pieces of work and art. I mean, i wouldnt call Legally Blonde art, but hey. thats just me.

Definitely art over entertainment, although I personally view art as being entertaining. But I agree that Broadway has just gotten too commercial (I know its a business, and people have to get paid, so don't start. I understand why it's in the state it is now, I just don't agree with the outrageousness of it) and I'm SOOO tired of all of the movie based crap that is being produced because its a popular movie and will draw people in. I'm not saying that ALL of these shows are pointless (i.e. Color Purple (based on a book too, not just a movie), even Hairspray has a message to get across) but I totally agree with Wedding Singer being pointless. I go to the theatre to see thought provoking shows that give you something to take with you, and it saddens me that these types of shows are becoming less frequent. But at the same time, I know these shows employ actors, designers, etc that need work, so for that aspect of it, I'm thankful. I just miss new, original shows, and highly prefer them to mindless, "fluffy" shows that abound today.

To COOOOLkid and Broadwayboy2631, I'm not trying to exacerbate the situation, but:

It's defyingravity11, not DefyingGravity11.

Even though I am a huge fan of Wicked, it does not mean that I cannot identify and enjoy what the frequent posters on this board would consider to be complex, legit theater. I became a fan of Wicked long before the craze hit and fell in love with it because of the messages it presents, not because of the spectacle (and IMO the spectacle of Wicked does not come close to that of other "fluffy" shows on Broadway today).

I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just wanted to defend myself

Actually, that's true.

[I actually agree and wouldn't say "Wicked" relies on spectacle. Most of the people I know that love it, love it because of the music, most haven't even seen the show.]

I'm not saying there can't be "fluff." But shouldn't Broadway be the best in musical theater? What happened to that prestige? I mean c'mon. Brookyln? The Wedding Singer? Tarzan? Those are such pieces of sh*t shows. Brooklyn at least had an attempt at a message. And we all know Tarzan's message because they beat it into your head, but are they artfully done? No. Art is subjective. And as George says in "Sunday...": "Art isn't easy."

I would say "The Producers" "Drowsy Chaperone" etc are all artfully done fluff. Sure they don't really bring up any major concerns, but they're still witty and charming without being so obvious about their humor (Wedding Singer).

This is more of a "vent" than an actual arguement or whatnot, but if all the producers that invest in Broadway really cared about the theater, then why would shows like "Ring of Fire" even be considered? I applaud Twyla for attempting something new and daring and putting a new spin on things. And I applaud John Doyle for his vision. Sure, you may not agree with it, but at least it's something new.

I would say "The Producers" "Drowsy Chaperone" etc are all artfully done fluff. Sure they don't really bring up any major concerns, but they're still witty and charming without being so obvious about their humor (Wedding Singer).

Not to quibble about technicalities, but I feel they are artful entertainment, calling it fluff IMO, degrades it. Pointless pieces that are not well done and have no point, that is fluff.

---

double post

Updated On: 12/5/06 at 11:40 PM

Em, but that's my point. I have no problem with Wicked. I think it has great potential and, for the most part, is a good representation of "the great American musical." It's something everyone can enjoy and it actually has characters and a plot that you care about. However, I don't understand how the producers/composers could let some of it slide. Why not develop Fieyro more? Give him a solo song? Why not fix some of the lyrics? Why change the ending to a "happier" ending? Why not at least explore the option of the original ending? I don't get why producers, etc. don't spend enough time tweaking their show, rather than just sort of putting a bunch of **** together and throwing it up on stage and seeing what sticks, ya know?