Traditional vs. Modern Broadway

[marcblack]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 8:35pm

Why do so many people hate on shows that try to be innovative and accomplish something new? I respect traditional Broadway shows, but many don't fare too well on the great white way anymore. Broadway is not a sacred art form, but a business that has a large following. Why do people really care if Spider-Man is on Broadway? Do they think it's taking space away from a revival of a classic show? Producers are reluctant to stage those productions because most don't make any money. Maybe people are upset that many shows aren't written the way they used to be? But things change over time, and the alternative to shows like Wicked and Spider-Man is no Broadway at all. I just feel with this whole Spider-Man fiasco, so many were out to get the show from the beginning. For so many who don't want to lose traditional musical theater, they're just stifling creativity by bashing the new stuff.

[binau]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 8:39pm

It's not like that at all. People don't bash 'new stuff' when it's good (see: Next to Normal et al.)

[Katurian2]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 8:45pm

Srsly- go try to find much negative opinion on Catch Me if You Can or Priscilla on the boards. It's not there, because previews of those have shown them to be quality productions worthy of artistic consideration. Word from Spider-Man previews... less so.

But no one is telling you not to think for yourself and form your own opinions on shows. It's just a bunch of opinions you can choose to act on or not. And BWW certainly doesn't have enough power to dictate how well a show does. We constitute a very small, picky portion of the theatre-going population.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 8:50pm

I dont think you'll find anyone on these boards posting against creative development, but let's get real for a moment, shall we?
SPIDEY has a mediocre book and a mediocre score. It is all about special effects and little else. It's the TRANSFORMERS or 2012 of stage productions: all style, no substance.

Maybe that's what Broadway has to become to survive: big splashy "events", rather than solid entertainment. God knows, I doubt seriously when George Gershwin sat down to write OF THEE I SING, he said tom himself, "Hey, I think I'll write something that's guaranteed Pulitzer!" Instead, he just did what Gershwin always did: write a brilliant score that his equally brilliant brother Ira could put words to.

But we dont have a Gershwin these days. Sondheim's retired. There's really no one on line to replace them, so we get countless jukebox musicals that have become ever increasingly mindless or shows by rock musicians looking to make a few ancillary bucks. And these kind of shows sell because they're familiar territory, not because they're great masterpieces. Tp be blunt, when we're getting excited because the Spice Girls are possibly coming to Broadway, it's time to seriously rethink this whole operation.

I'm not as keen as others about the whole revival thing, because IMHO the revivals rarely, if ever, come close to what made the original show so great in the first place. They're like looking at the Coles Notes version, with little true innovation on the part of the director. The only one that really seemed to work on that level was arguably CHICAGO, but that's an anomoly. Look at all the other attempts: OKLAHOMA, NINE, BELLS ARE RINGING, WEST SIDE STORY, ONCE UP0ON A MATTRESS -- shows that, even with their detractions, could have been bulletproof... and yet failed miserably on the conceptual level. I really weep for people who think the Roundabout's FOLLIES was good theatre -- they have no idea how flat out amazing the original was, and how this is just a very pale copy. And yet that's how most revivals come off: sad little evocations and not much more.

I dont know what the answer is. Maybe we're just going through a period of adjustment, waiting around for the Next Big Thing. The whole industry is just doing a time step. But it's pretty painful to watch.

[marcblack]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 8:56pm

I agree with what everyone is saying, and yes the reviews from Spider-Man previews have been mixed. However, the masses on here were bashing the production MONTHS before performances started. So with little clue as to the concept or vision, people were simply ripping Spidey for U2 music and a $65 million budget. And honestly what's so bad about $65 million from a consumer or fan's point of view? That was my point about so many stifling creativity, because they weren't making educated comments. Now if you'd like to judge the show based on seeing a performance, by all means...
Updated On: 12/21/10 at 08:56 PM

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 9:00pm

I have two words for you:

PIRATE QUEEN.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 9:31pm

Wicked is very much a "traditional" musical - I don't understand why you chose that to defend "modern" theater and innovation.

Most folks here want quality: with or without spectacle and innovation. PERIOD.

While I don't understand people critiquing a show they haven't seen, I can understand having an opinion on concept. I haven't seen Rock of Ages, becausse from everything I DO know about it, I know it's not for me. I wouldn't say it's a crap show, because I haven't seen it. But I can make an intelligent opinion FOR ME.

To bring this up NOW, since the show has opened, seems a bit silly. A HUGE number of people that talk about the show HAVE seen it. (Notwithstanding all the injury talk.)

All along, Spidey has had people excited about it and defending it.

[Kad]

Posted: 12/21/10 at 9:39pm

The thing is, opinion of Spider-Man has definitely devolved over time, since its initial announcement and back when it had Alan Cumming and Evan Rachel Wood. But a LOT has happened since that initial announcement years ago: the numerous delays, the budget spiraling out of control, the investors dropping out, the overspending and the egos and the rumors. We never even saw a design or heard a song until just this summer. I never even had an opinion on the thing until I saw those ghastly costume designs a few months ago.

[A Director]

Posted: 12/22/10 at 3:01am

Kad - What's with the "we"? When did you get to approve who was or wasn't cast in Spider-Man? Or who produced it? I wasn't aware the designer, etc had to get your okay.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/22/10 at 6:16am

Kad never said that. He only said that his opinion/preconception of the show has fallen over time. That until WE the PUBLIC begain seeing and hearing details (cosutmes, songs, etc) he didn't even HAVE an opinion. He never suggested that they needed his input or approval.

If you want to bash a poster, at least be sure to READ their post correctly.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 12/22/10 at 4:40pm

"Maybe that's what Broadway has to become to survive: big splashy "events", rather than solid entertainment."

What annoys me is the assertion that Broadway has always been about artistic merit. It's always been about big, splashy entertainment. People talk about the handful of musicals that comprise the golden age, but never seem to acknowledge the HUNDREDS of other shows that have never again seen the light of day, as if all the shows that open during the so-called golden age were all there were. It's annoying. I tend to think those shows are remembered because they had messages, as oppsed to flashy shows with no substance. Broadway is about entertainment and money. It has never been about anything else.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/22/10 at 5:31pm

*applauds Fosse76*

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/22/10 at 5:47pm

>> "What annoys me is the assertion that Broadway has always been about artistic merit."

There's a difference between a throwaway musical with mindless eye candy and an "event" show. An "event" show has a huge budget, seemingly unlimited PR access, and positions itself as something *everyone* must see. That's a world of difference from the kind of shows you're talking about. It's like comparing a university football game with the Superbowl. Or to put it in entertainment terms: both "Percy Jackson" and "Avatar" were splashy films with lots of pretty damn good CG. "Percy" sank and disappeared. "Avatar" was an event. The fact that both were lousy pictures doesnt matter.

It has nothing to do with "artistic merit". Very few shows get that moniker. But at the same time, even fewer are "events" like Spidey.

Updated On: 12/22/10 at 05:47 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 12/22/10 at 6:18pm

"Kad never said that. He only said that his opinion/preconception of the show has fallen over time. That until WE the PUBLIC begain seeing and hearing details (cosutmes, songs, etc) he didn't even HAVE an opinion. He never suggested that they needed his input or approval.

If you want to bash a poster, at least be sure to READ their post correctly."

Thanks, Dramamama. I honestly don't even know how A Director was able to draw his conclusion from my post.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/22/10 at 7:45pm

Aw...my pleasure, Kad. I've got your back. (I love the reasonable.)

[esparza 333]

Posted: 12/23/10 at 7:41pm

Nobody here is against the evolution of musical theatre or innovative shows. For shows that rallied a lot of support from broadway goers look no further then innovative shows like Next to Normal, Spring Awakening, Even Fela. Before that it was shows like Rent and before that it was Company and you can go on and on. The thing that spider man lacks that the others had is anything innovative to the broadway musical itself. While it has extraordinary effects and sets, the effect of it is lessened by a mediocre book and score. And in the end of the day Spider Man is a cirque de soleil-esque show and while that is okay, musical theatre is an art form that uses music and songs to tell a story and Spiderman does so weakly. For a circus production it might be innovative but it is not emotionally and musically compelling enough to be taken seriously as musical theatre.

As far as revivals go, I have always felt their should be a balance between original works. We need original musicals so are art form can evolve but revivals introduce classics to a new generation and sometimes re-interpret classics. Revivals that don't change anything libretto or score wise remind us why we loved a show or at least attempt to. Revivals that change things can help us see a show in a new light or make if fresh. As far as I am concerned both are important. I do feel however that there is a responsibility when putting on a revival to have a new vision and cast worthy people and make sure the tone and feel of the show is there.

In response to the so called Golden Age, I think the reason it is called this is because it was the initial years of the American Musicals and visionaries redefined broadway very often. Also certain composers had impeccable consistency.There were flops and no one is denying that, but there was so much creative spark that this era became associated with that. I don't think it is fair to say that there are no Sondheim's or Gershwins of this generation. You never know what will happen. True their marks on theatre are extraordinary and matching them would be no easy feat. But there are still numerous composers who are extremely promising. Tom Kitt, David Yazbek, Adam Guettel are just a few. While so far none of their achievements has been as impactful as say Rodgers and Hammerstein's Oklahoma, they show promise and do offer a lot to theatre right now.

I think the recent economic woes have downplayed creativity but it is only a phase and it will pass. In the end of the day, shows like Company and Oklahoma will come along and change broadway. While seeing closing of show like Scottsboro Boys and BBAJ might be discouraging, these shows stil played a part in shaping theatre and could inspire someone to write a show that becomes a hit.

Updated On: 12/27/10 at 07:41 PM