What is the most "looked down upon" Broadway show?

[brightasyellow]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 1:19pm

I've noticed that there are certain shows that many theater people dislike and put down, like Spring Awakening, Rent and Wicked. I was just curious as to why?

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 1:28pm

Simply because many who consider themselves "serious thea-tuh people" look down upon shows that have an ardent, somewhat crazed bunch of fans. Next to Normal also gets the stink eye from many who consider themselves afficianados.

Most composers, lyricists, and bookwriters would kill for a show that becomes a phenom, but so few do.Therefore many like to "poo poo" those that do as somehow being so pedestrian that masses could so easily become enthralled.

[bwaylvsong]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 1:32pm

I'd add any Disney, jukebox, or otherwise "corporate" (aka movie-based) shows as being looked down upon, too. Personally, I enjoy those shows just as much as anything else. The fact that a show is "fluffy" does not make it bad.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 1:35pm

I'd add any Disney, jukebox, or otherwise "corporate" (aka movie-based) shows as being looked down upon, too. Personally, I enjoy those shows just as much as anything else. The fact that a show is "fluffy" does not make it bad.

Right. Honestly, as long as a show is actually good I don't care what the source material is be it book, movie, etc.

[newintown]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 1:49pm

Cats would be high on that list. Even Oh Calcutta deserves more respect than that K-Mart of theatre.

[HistoryBoy2]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 2:05pm

Many (but by no means all) shows that are hugely popular with the masses seem to achieve this by "dumbing down". Wicked, for example, has bright things that flash and a cherry picker. People go nuts.
However, artistically it's pretty dire. The book is a mess, the score is forgettable and the choreography just isn't.

And that's why people look down on these shows.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 2:09pm

Cats.

[madbrian]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 2:10pm

Mamma Mia belongs in this conversation.

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 2:19pm

This goes WAY back, but I remember the look of disdain that I always got when I'd mention that I'd seen Big River. I didn't even say I liked it and the rolled eyes and the groans would continue. I wasn't particularly crazy about the show but I learned to shut up about it when I saw the reactions.

[tazber]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 2:22pm

Definitely Cats.

[newintown]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 2:23pm

As Gore Vidal said, "Success is doing well what shouldn't be done at all." By this he means that almost any piece of "art" that achieves huge popular success is heinously tailored to appeal to a lowbrow herd. (I.e. "The Da Vinci Code" - a perfectly enjoyable book, but easily digested by a third-grade-level reader, lacking in the sort of skill or craft that typifies a truly excellent piece of writing.)

Posted: 9/22/10 at 2:28pm

History Boy illustrates this phenomenon perfectly- someone told him the way to look smart is to express his superior opinions about a popular show, and he did it flawlessly: Notice the way he puts forth his opinion as if it were fact: "artistically it's pretty dire. The book is a mess, the score is forgettable and the choreography just isn't."

PERFECT! Gore Vidal would be proud!

Incidentally, if it was so easy to write a book as popular as "the DaVinci code" Gore would have done it years ago!

[goodoneinlou2]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 2:38pm

I'd say historically, Grease would have to rank as one of the most "shunned" shows.

From what I understand, the original production was critically "looked down upon" due to it's vulgarity and simple book. Not to mention, many old-school Broadway folks didn't like the fact that it was such a successful upstart show written by two novices that ran for years and years.

The 1994 Calhoun revival was met with arguments that it was overblown yet watered down, neon-pop-infused and silly.

The recent revival was mostly a flop due to what many considered mis-direction and the desire to encorporate movie elements into the stage version.

It's often blasted on here (any version) and often spoken of as a meaningless show full of fluff and nostalgia... nothing more.

However, the show has stood the test of time and remains one of the most widely recognized (and performed) musicals.

Love it or hate it, that darn show has stood the test of time and ALWAYS draws interest.

Updated On: 9/22/10 at 02:38 PM

[HistoryBoy2]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 2:40pm

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot that every mention of art must be prefaced with that magical pass, "in my opinion".

I believe there is a level of objectivity to art. Yes there are preferences and tastes, but there is a standard of quality.
To illustrate, if I were to give you a drawing I'd done, made using my own faeces daubed on some canvas and say, "It's a bunny", most would think, "Hmm, this isn't very good. It looks nothing like a bunny, though the similarilty of smell is remarkable."
Similarly, if I gave you a still-warm manuscript of "my new book about the adventures of some courageous field mice trying to bring down the evil forester", and you read it only to find page after page of description of the aforementioned "Runny Bunny", you would probably again think, "Well this is no good at all - there's nothing about some plucky mice and the forester is nowhere to be seen."
You might very much enjoy reading it, but objectively it is not good.

I think the same can be said of musical theatre. For instance, the language used should be character- and time-specific (unless it is deliberately incongruous, like in Spring Awakening). Sondheim dislikes the lyrical quality of 'Tonight' because he says no teenager at the time would speak like that. He sees it as "bad" because it is, for this piece of musical theatre, inappropriate.
In Wicked, the language and music seem to have no basis in character. In one scene, the characters simply have a conversation set to music with nothing lyrical about it. Next second, Elphaba sings, "my road of good intention led where such roads always lead" in a voice completely unlike that used elsewhere in the show. There's no consistency.

I could go on, but you may have stopped reading by now. I hope I've been clear.

[brightasyellow]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 2:55pm

While Wicked may have flaws musically, I find there is a lot to dissect, female friendships, what constitutes "good" and "bad" and who makes those distinctions, angry mobs, etc. I like to come out of theater THINKING and analyzing (and having been entertained). This is probably why I disliked American Idiot. It tried very hard to be intellectual and abstract but managed to do neither very well.

I love Wicked, Spring Awakening and Rent. I've seen them at very important times in my lives. But I also love Sondheim (talk about meaty themes to analyze!) and straight plays (going to see Mrs. Warren's Profession and currently reading some analysis). If it makes an impact, then I'm happy.

I took my 8 year old cousin to her first Broadway show a month ago - Mary Poppins. She loved it and is hooked. I was bored, but I still found some things to think about (although the themes were hammered over our head). My first Broadway show was The Secret Garden and I loved it.

I get the Cats hate, but I also appreciate the attempt to turn poetry into a musical. No one's going to say that T.S. Eliot dumbs things down (have you read the Waste Land?).

*Edit* - I love that Next to Normal is popular. It brings such a taboo subject to light and, hopefully, destigmatizes it. Updated On: 9/22/10 at 02:55 PM

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 2:57pm

Theatre is very subjective.

There are some people who love Billy Elliot but hate next to Normal.

Adore Little Mermaid but hate Beauty and the Beast.

Cherish Shrek but cannot stand Mary Poppins.

Abhor Spring Awakening but relish Fela.

Worship La Cage Aux Folles but feel repungance for A Little Night Music.

Abominate Come Fly With Me but feel enchantment for 9-5.

Carry Armour for Color Purple but execrate Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.

Have fervor for The Pirate Queen but feel aversion to Les Miserables.

Repugiate American Idiot but have piety for Mamma Mia.

Etc etc etc etc etc.................

As for myself I try to enjoy every show for what it is and on its own merits, it's that simple.

Posted: 9/22/10 at 2:59pm

When Chicago opened it was a much-loved show. When it was finally revived, the reviews were great and most theater fans seemed to LOVE it. The longer it has run, the louder the complaints have gotten.

If Wicked had run three months and closed, theater buffs would STILL be raving about it. (See "Carrie.")

And there is no such thing as a "Standard of quality" when it comes to art. Van Gogh couldn't draw for ****. People hated his stuff. He died broke. Now, his paintings sell for $80,000,000. Is it a good painting or not? How can the "standard of quality" change?

[HistoryBoy2]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 3:02pm

So there are no "good shows" or "bad shows", just ones you like and ones you don't?

That would be nice, but I really don't think it's true.

Posted: 9/22/10 at 3:11pm

How would you define a "good show" or a "bad show?" Wicked is a Bad Show because the score is forgettable? Forgettable to whom? Not the two million people who bought the cast album. The book is a mess? Not to the people crying during the final scene.

Wicked is a Bad Show to you. It is a Good Show to the 14,000+ people who go see it every week.

[brightasyellow]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 3:18pm

I gotta agree with Joe. What makes a good or bad book? There are scholars who will say Hemingway was one of the best writers ever and there are others who will tear him down. Yes, there are standards, but I don't know what they are in musical theater and I WOULD like to know how to properly critique a show in a scholarly manner.

[HistoryBoy2]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 3:18pm

Popularity does not equal quality. To paraphrase Jesse Armstrong, look at Coldplay and the Nazis.

I believe I am able to separate the quality of a piece and my enjoyment of it. For example, I recognise all that is fantastic about Grey Gardens - the lyrics are often brilliant and the music great. However, it's just not my cup of tea (yet; I have a feeling I may grow into it).

I enjoy Wicked as much as the next man, as I have a weak spot for high belting (who doesn't?) but I still believe it's not a well put-together piece of theatre.

Posted: 9/22/10 at 3:24pm

If there are good shows and bad shows why do good shows fail? Why do bad shows succeed? If the music in Gray Gardens is so great why don't you like it? Why do some people hate broccoli- it's Sooooooo Good! AND good for you!

Because it's opinion and perception and personal taste. There is no such thing as empirical superiority.

[uncageg]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 3:33pm

Thank you Joe, I was trying to come up with my thoughts on "Wiced" but you summed them up quite nicely. I saw the show 3 times. Once on Broadway with the original cast. I was a bit obsessed with the music. Saw it twice on tour, once because I organized a group and the second because I was invited to opening night. I enjoyed it but after the first time it kind of just became a concert to me. It really isn't a bad show and I can see why people are drawn to it. I cried during "For Good" when I saw it the first time. But I am now Wickeded out. I will still listen to the music but I doubt I will see it again.

[HistoryBoy2]

Posted: 9/22/10 at 3:33pm

Good shows can fail for myriad reasons - the public may not take to the subject matter or find the score or book too challenging. There are many who go to the theatre purely to be entertained and so enjoy shows like Legally Blonde and Wicked - nothing is complicated, nothing is difficult, you can just shut down and enjoy the spectacle in front of you.
Conversely, there are shows that I believe to be brilliant like Passion or Sunday in the Park with George that can be very intense, complex experiences that some would prefer to avoid.

As I said before: I don't think art is all "opinion and perception and personal taste". As a genuine question - do you really never say, "You should definitely go and see Gypsy, it's a great show!"? Must it always be, "You should definitely go and see Gypsy, I really enjoyed it!"?

As for Grey Gardens, I wish I knew. Something about it fails to keep me, but I do come back to it every so often to see if I'm ready to digest it.

And broccoli is delicious.

Posted: 9/22/10 at 3:43pm

I can't say I've never slipped and said "Gypsy is a great show." And I certainly do goad BWW-ers with statements like ""title of show" is the worst piece of dog poo to ever make it to Broadway."

But that does not mean that I endorse the insane idea that some shows are certifiably "good" and some are "bad." Science says matter falls into three categories: Solid, liquid and gas. You can categorize them because they share specific qualities. (i.e. "liquid is the state in which matter maintains a fixed volume but adapts to the shape of its container")

So please tell us the ways to quantify a good show or a bad show. If it is empirical fact, there must be empirical data.