What is the most "looked down upon" Broadway show? — Page 3

You're a law student? Wow.

OK, I guess I got snippy with "Do you know what a fact is?" but, really, DO YOU KNOW WHAT A FACT IS?

Saying a production of "Passion" is 75 minutes long (or whatever) is a fact- you can verify it, two people can each measure it and come up with the same fact, it will be the same no matter who looks at it. No one can say "No, this production of Passion is three hours long." It is verifiable through established process that it is indeed 75 minutes from start to finish.

Saying "Passion" is Good is indeed an OPINION. I might say it's boring, Taz might say there isn't enough nudity, Phyllis might say it's depressing. Those are all OUR OPINIONS. We are welcome to them, we can debate them, and we will NEVER arrive at a duplicatable conclusion.

If there was a factual basis to the idea of a "good" show we would never argue over the Tony Awards: "Light in the Piazza" has the qualities of a "good" show and we award it 6 Tony Awards. Dirty Rotten Scoundrels has the qualities of a "pretty good" show and we award it two."

You are obviously an person of intelligence- do you really not understand the difference between opinion and fact?

I am fascinated by the extreme revision of opinion of Cats over the years. When Cats opened, it was apparently THE hot show -- not just financially and by ticket demand, but also lots of Tonys, the cover of Newsweek, and some critical respect. There is a running joke in Six Degrees of Separation that the sophisticated New York characters do stupid things because they think it will get them into the movie version of Cats.

But now the consensus seems to be the show is awful. Really awful. Nowadays, sophisticated New Yorkers would do anything possible to avoid being in the movie version of Cats. I can not think of another show that has had opinion fall so far so fast. I'm not really sure I understand why it has happened.

HistoryBoy2, there are lots of different definitions of "good" and "bad," and different concepts of where the cutoffs lie. (Is a mediocre show "bad"? Some would say yes, some would say no.) You have your definition, but others are using their own definitions. For many people, a work of art is "good" if the beholder is glad overall that they saw it or experienced it. I saw Wicked, I liked it, therefore the show is good. You are using a different definition and therefore come to a different conclusion. I think you are also trying to divide every show into either "good show" or "bad show." An awful lot of shows are in a gray area in between, with "good" aspects and parts that could be improved.

---

I wish theatre critics would read this thread. They seem to think that their opinion is not only fact but also law and possibly scripture.

Cats won the Tony in 1983, yes. Beating superflops Merlin, A Doll's Life, and the jukebox musical My One and Only. Other new musicals that season? Cleavage, Seven Brides, Dance A Little Closer.

Winning the Tony that year was no honor.

And it wasn't universally considered a great show. Even from this distance, I remember the consensus being that it was ridiculous dreck, even more ridiculous that the tourists were flocking to it in lemming-like droves.

HistoryBoy is presenting his opinions as facts or some type of revised theatre history lesson. He is incorrect. If someone disagrees with his opinion, he argues (like a lawyer) why their opinion is incorrect. No opinion is incorrect-ignorant, uninformed or moronic, yes, but not really wrong.

He perfectly demonstrates how it is all subjective.

The defense rests. No further questions your honor.

---

Look, for the last time, of course I understand the difference between fact and opinion:

The sky is blue - fact!
The sky is pretty - opinion!
(I hope I passed.)

What I'm trying to suggest is that I believe they CAN BE SEPARATED in this context. Even if I don't have the parameters right (see my list above), I still believe that they do exist in some form. Would it straighten things out if we abandoned "good" and "bad" and replaced them with the admittedly less catchy "artistically meritorious" and "not artistically meritorious"? But Joe, thank you for realising I'm not stupid.

And BettyBoy, "presenting opinion as fact" is what everybody does. All the way through I've said "I believe" and "I think" - I apologise for not prefacing everything with "in my opinion", but those words made it clear. (Though you've said my opinion is "incorrect". Can that be?)
When someone says, "Mamma Mia was really really good!" that is, apparently, presenting their opinion as fact. Unless you explicitly state at every turn that your words are simply your opinion and are disclaimed as such, then it sounds like fact.

I gets messy then because I've tried to give my OPINION on an instance where I believe there to be FACT (see earlier, subjectivity on objectivity).

Mikem: Yes, I said earlier that I think there's a spectrum. To go to black and white extremes is silly and of course shows can have good bits and bad bits. Also, as I just wrote here, I of course cannot be sure that my "definitions" or "rules" are correct. I just have the conviction that these parameters do exist, even if I'm not clever enough to work out what they are.

What now fascinates me is that everyone is up in arms about the centrality of subjectivism in this area, and the fact that all opinions have their weight, but mine is "incorrect" and seems to not be worth the time of day.

I hope I'm not coming off as too much of a douche-nozzle.

Updated On: 9/23/10 at 05:47 AM

No history boy, you really don't get it. What is "artistically meritorious" to you is crap to me. that is why it's AN OPINION. You cannot PROVE one show is intrinsically better than another. You obviously have a blind spot when it comes to art- you understand that "pretty" when applied to the sky is opinion but somehow can't see that I might think "Wicked" is better than "the Light in The Piazza" despite your insistence that it is a superior show.

I understand that you think that certain things will make one show superior to another; but you somehow can't understand that those things are merely your opinion.

Cats is definitely the most frowned-upon musical. It had the gall not to be constructed in a way that placated the musical theatre aficionados and to add insult to injury, the rest of the world ignored their opinions and it went on to be one of the most successful musicals in the world. While it is true that Cats became one of the "shows to see" on Broadway for tourists, it also had a massive fan base of people seeing the show over and over and over again. People liked the music, the costumes, the dancing, the environmental set. Just because it did not adhere to an unspoken set of laws doesn't mean it is a bad show. I saw it in London and I knew immediately why it was a huge success. It was designed to dazzle and entertain and nothing more. Just like the musicals prior to the Golden Age in the early decades of Broadway. I don't think Cats was a bad show at all, but I do think it was lucky. It was the right show at the right time and while it may not hold up under a new design or staging, it's never had to. Most likely, the show will return to Broadway in its original staging and be a hit again. To me, that is not a "bad" show. It's actually a very "good" show. There is nothing wrong with appealing to the masses as long as you give them something they actually like. And the masses like Cats and Mamma Mia. So do I. I also like Rock of Ages. Sometimes I just want to relax and have a good time and I appreciate that musical theatre can be both intellectually stimulating or mindlessly fun. Anyone who expects more from musical theatre are most likely either ignoring its history or would prefer to restrict it to something that it never has been.

some people just have a natural aversion to anything that is popular with the masses.

I would amend that to say "some people pretend to have a natural aversion to anything that is popular with the masses. I think it has a lot more to do with pretension and popularity. I remember very well when Rent was a really hot item in the musical theatre community when it premiered Off-Broadway and it became the "little show that could" when it moved to Broadway to huge success. But within a couple of years and the general public grew to love it in the US, opinions within the community slowly shifted until it became the new popular show to disparage. It was like a badge of honor to put down that which the public adores. It means you are above the common man and of higher than average intelligence. And you can even see it seeping into some of the literature out there. I've been reading Ethan Mordden's One More Kiss and while I like the factual info, anecdotes and history, sometimes his personal opinions get in the way and he comes off as bitter, closed-minded and snide. In those moments, I start to question the validity of the rest of the material.

---

Mister Matt says "There is nothing wrong with appealing to the masses as long as you give them something they actually like."

I agree.

But I also think it's a good thing to acknowledge that a lot of what appeals to the herd is baby food (covered in glitter, often) rather than a full gourmet feast. We can all enjoy baby food, and still admit that it's a lesser achievement than the feast (except for the relativists, who will maintain there are no qualitative differences in ability, merit, or virtue in anything, except those perceived by the individual).

So The Da Vinci Code sells 10 billion copies, and Dawn Powell's Turn Magic Wheel sells 10 thousand - the Powell is still a smarter, more subtle work, with a greater scope of ideas, and a unique author's voice.

Above all, remember this, please: Sales Are Not The Same Thing As Quality.

Sorry, just to repeat my question: do you think there is such a thing as a well-written novel?

Sure i think lots of novels are well-written. But again, that is an OPINION. There is no empirical way to prove one novel is better than another.

You see from my perspective that's fascinating. I would say a lot of James Joyce, or Shakespeare, for instance, is beautifully written, compared to Dan Brown or JK Rowling. Perhaps its simply the overwhelming force of my opinion on that blinding me, but I just don't see them as artistically comparable.
I completely understand that one might not enjoy Joyce, but I couldn't fail to recognise some merit or skill in his prose.

I feel the same way about musical theater - even if I don't fall in love with a show, I think I'm able to appreciate the craft and skill evident in it.

Or (and I'm just kicking the tyres on this one) perhaps I find it too simplistic to hear someone say, "I liked it, so it was good." Maybe it disappoints me that people can't say, "I didn't really care for it, but I have to admit, it was a brilliantly written book/play etc." Who knows?