Why aren't there more horror-themed plays on Broadway?- Page 2

[darquegk]

Posted: 9/20/14 at 11:26pm

The difference between horror and thriller/suspense has always been, to me, camp. Not necessarily camp in the posed, stylized and self-aware way we associate with pure "queer camp," but camp in the sense that the deathly serious is up against the somewhat ludicrous. In a horror film, things happen that stretch the bounds of suspension of disbelief- either the supernatural (high-concept ghosts and devils, often with some twist), the supernormal (how can a mentally handicapped recluse like Jason Vorhees survive so many times, and how does he kill in such a flamboyant and spectacular fashion again and again), or the illogical (we all know the cliches- "Let's split up!" "I"ll be right back!" "The killer is inside the house!")

A thriller traditionally deals, if not more seriously, at least more realistically within the bounds of the horror and suspense genre, while horror goes by rule of cool, rule of funny and rule of scary, rather than rules of logic and sound plotting. Thrillers are more concerned with being sound and suspenseful than a scare a minute, which means that both are valid genres with different end goals.

Joining in the group of people talking about the appeal of writing horror plays: I have been working for a few years on a musical based on "The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari," which seemed to sing to me from the first time I saw it in school. It took me a few years to really crack the tone, but things are starting to progress now.

[mjohnson2]

Posted: 9/20/14 at 11:39pm

There have been productions of MACBETH (namely the 2008 Patrick Stewart Broadway revival) that take the material into horror territory; some less successfully than others.

[icecreambenjamin]

Posted: 9/21/14 at 12:09am

There are some shows that can be staged to lean more on the side of horror. Macbeth, Oedipus Rex, Medea, and Hamlet are all classical pieces of theatre that can easily become quite terrifying.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/21/14 at 12:19am

Again, there is a difference between Suspense and Horror.

[mjohnson2]

Posted: 9/21/14 at 1:01am

I would argue that MACBETH can be full-out horror due to the amount of blood possibly seen on stage and the general gore.

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 9/21/14 at 1:20am

Go and see the National Theatre production of Frankenstein, coming to a theater near you soon!

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/21/14 at 4:46am

CALIGARI is a great idea, darquegk! Best of luck with it and I hope it plays where I can see it.

[Jon]

Posted: 9/21/14 at 10:07am

There was a Broadway stage version of Frankenstein in the late 70's/early 80's that turned out to be the biggest money-losing flop non-musical in history.

We recently had Lestat, Dance of the Vampires and Dracula the Musical all flop within two seasons.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/21/14 at 10:26am

Right, but those weren't horror. You might as well say we had revivals of GYPSY and A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC recently.

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 9/21/14 at 11:24am

I think going back to the plays of Christopher Marlowe (and Shakespeare to a lesser extant) will offer lots of opportunities for true horror onstage. I remember a great production of The Jew of Malta at ATC in San Francisco in the 90's that felt very much like a contemporary horror film (with a moderate helping of snuff film tossed in for good measure). And if poor Edward II's end DOESN'T feel like a horror movie, you're doing something very wrong.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 9/21/14 at 12:13pm

Horror is a slippery genre to define and, like Sci-Fi, incredibly difficult to pull off onstage. Sarah Kane's narrative plays, the Jacobeans like THE REVENGER'S TRAGEDY or TIS PITY SHE'S A WHORE and Shakespeare's own TITUS ANDRONICUS all have elements of horror. I sadly, tragically missed the Public's production of THE SKRIKER by Caryl Churchill, but by all reports it was SCARY!!!

Oh, and a couple of years ago in London, there was a play version of the film THEATER OF BLOOD which sounded like a hoot. Such a shame it didn't make it across the pond.

Updated On: 9/21/14 at 12:13 PM

[Elfuhbuh]

Posted: 9/21/14 at 3:30pm

The German-language productions of Jekyll & Hyde seemed to lean WAY more towards the horror genre than any of the English-language productions ever did. (I've heard that the Alley Theatre production was darker in tone than the Broadway production, but I didn't see that one.)

[sinister teashop]

Posted: 9/21/14 at 3:57pm

Since Broadway caters to tourists and families I don't see why horror wouldn't work much in the same way that a roller coaster ride works at Disneyland. Broadway audiences as they're currently configured would enjoy squealing in fear and relief at each turn of the plot. It might even attract that hard to reach Broadway demographic, the boys in the family. So invest in horror on Broadway!

Unfortunately, horror would have to be cleansed first of any of its real beauty before it arrived on Broadway as a viable product.






Updated On: 9/21/14 at 03:57 PM

[#1CarrieFan]

Posted: 9/21/14 at 4:15pm

I certainly concur with the previous post about having more mysteries on stage that haven't happened for ages. Along with Deathtrap, I have fond memories of Paxton Whitehead in The Crucifer of Blood. For a number of years, it was always rumored that there would be a transfer of London's The Woman in Black, but that obviously never occurred. Broadway producers, take heed, and fill this void of this genre.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/21/14 at 10:02pm

And if poor Edward II's end DOESN'T feel like a horror movie, you're doing something very wrong.

(Emphasis added.)

Heh, heh, heh. Beavis, Butthead and I are all laughing at your pun.

[wonkit]

Posted: 9/21/14 at 11:17pm

Many years ago I saw a production of Shakespeare's CORIOLANUS at Stratford that was as close to horror as I have seen on stage. And wasn't there a recent production of TITUS A. that had people grossed out? If anybody can handle it on stage, count on Shakespeare.

And I second the mention of NT's FRANKENSTEIN. Except that giving the Creature speech and feelings actually made it less horror and more humanist philosophy.

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 9/21/14 at 11:43pm

Oh Gaveston, glad someone caught that :)

[missthemountains]

Posted: 9/22/14 at 2:29am

Tourism, unfortunately. Plain and simple. Why see something dark, strange and horrifying when you could see Beauty And The Beast? And as someone else mentioned, an intimate theatre space can make a huge difference...and one that I felt would be lost in a huge commercial house.

While horror theatre and sci-fi theatre is "harder" in some ways, it does not mean it can't be done and that it can't be done well--I've both seen and directed some bone-chilling stuff. Lest we forget that film noir and suspense films were literally modeled after Grand Guignol, an extremely macabre/gothic form of theatre, which I highly reccommend, if you're into that sortof thing, that you look into.

It's true while in this day and age, there's a lot of things film can accomplish insane computer-generated affects for those genres, that theatre cannot--but conversly, theatre can also do one thing film will never be able to do, which is create a live experience and it's totally possible to scare a live audience, it just means you have to be a bit more creative on how you execute some of said affects live.

I highly reccomend checking out some Sarah Kane, anything by Artaud, Marat Sade and Veronica's Room for some real good thrillers :)


Theatre can outdo cinema for horror Updated On: 9/22/14 at 02:29 AM

[missthemountains]

Posted: 9/22/14 at 2:30am

I should mention that I run a horror theatre company, so this is a topic I deal with on a regular basis lol.

[harris007]

Posted: 9/22/14 at 11:59am

i wish someone who do the stage version of Vincent Price movie theater of blood.They did it in London in 2005 with Jim Broadbent.