I don't know if it's "of all time" but I think "Applause" is kind of unfairly maligned, at least the score. The lyrics occasionally are kinda weak (though the show's satirical lean fills in a few cracks) but there really aren't any positively bad numbers (maybe a little dull) and several of them are outstanding. Obviously people get upset over it winning the Tony but awards are hardly the end-all be-all signifier of quality and though it's hard to imagine someone other than Lauren Bacall filling the role as well as Lauren Bacall did (her rendition of "Hurry Back", married with that stunning quintessentially-70s arrangement, is magnificent) it really is a great bunch of songs.
edit: yes, including all the slang in "Who's That Girl". Foolry-acky-sacky indeed.
Updated On: 3/12/13 at 03:53 AM
God, why do so few of you understanding the concept of underrated? For example, a musical that wins a Tony, runs four years, and becomes a film shown on television EVERY year is NOT UNDERRATED. Rockabye Hamlet may be underrated. King of Hearts may be underrated, Carmelina may be underrated. BUT NOT 1776! I'm waiting for you silly people to call The Producers and Book of Mormon underrated. No, folks, that's what you call OVERRATED. Now can someone who knows what he's talking about start this thread again?
I would have to wholeheartedly agree with TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA. There's a special place in my heart reserved for that show, and when I finally got to see the New York Shakespeare Festival revival at the Delacorte in Central Park I was in sheer heaven watching Renee Elise Goldsberry, Norm Lewis, Rosario Dawson and Oscar Isaac in the leads.
I don't know that a musical needs to be obscure to be overrated. I'll explain why I think 1776 belongs in the conversation. When asked about all-time great musicals, most people, even 'theater people', don't necessarily blurt out 1776. It's not a star vehicle, and it's not revived all the time. So, while it may not be a hidden gem, I still consider it underrated because, in my opinion, it belongs in a conversation right alongside Gypsy, West Side Story, Les Miserables, A Chorus Line, My Fair Lady, etc.
"It does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."
-- Thomas Jefferson
DO BLACK PATENT LEATHER SHOES REALLY REFLECT UP? - A really charming show with an uneven score, but it plays like gangbusters.
SEESAW- It's just fun, and with a dynamic female lead is really powerful.
SARAFINA! - Probably the most moving, thrilling show I ever saw (the movie version pales in comparison). Don't know if it could ever be done again, though.
"What- and quit show business?" - the guy shoveling elephant shit at the circus.
Underrated means undervalued. It can relate to a show that was successful but which eluded greater success unjustifiably or it can relate to an absolute flop that we loved, and anything in between that one feels was undervalued.
The confusion - or the source of the supposed confusion - is not about "underrated" but about "most underrated"
The conjunction of a superlative with an abasement begs the ambiguous question of how to measure the relative degree of a perceived injustice.
What "most underrated" means and whether it can apply to successful shows - even very successful ones - that really, really, no I mean REALLY - NO LIE! - should have been much, much!, MUCH! - and when I say much I mean so very much - more successful or only to very, very, VERY! unsuccessful shows that should have been at least moderately successful, or better than JUST moderately successful, is a semantic and epistemological question which may well be beyond caring (and yet I am bored at work and so am going on and on about it....).
Accordingly, I suggest that "most undervalued" be whatever anyone wants it to be.
If someone wants to nominate 1776 or She Loves Me notwithstanding their renown and if others prefer to champion Juno, Chess, Mack and Mabel, Chu Chem or Via Galactica (for example, I am neither endorsing nor condemning any such particular candidate at present) because they were so unfairly unappreciated, then so be it. If others choose famous shows that didn't recoup, and or were robbed of tony or tonys, or didn't last nearly as long as Phantom or Cats (what has?) when it opened the same season as some megahit piece of crap and was so much better, but which nonetheless haS had many revivals and is talked about on bww relentlessly, that's also an option.
All kinds of answers are responsive to the question.