The Dismal State of The American Musical Theater Today
I hate Broadway right now.
Harsh yet true. I find it sad that The Great White Way falls so short of its former glory. Of course, plenty of this is due to the changing times. The pinnacle of the visual arts is no longer the stage but the cinema. It was bound to happen, as technology grew and the motion picture became a viable art form (and as all art forms seem doomed to be manipulated by the commercial media at some point, it can be of no surprise), the stage would become a lesser form in terms of popularity and public opinion. However, one can hardly blame the movies for the death of creativity in the musical theater we are experiencing today. Broadway Musicals today have become nothing but commercialized fodder; rebuilds and revivals, knock-offs of art and charlatans of new ideas. In my opinion, the doom of the American Musical Theater has more to do with its lack of vitality in this new day and less to do with the rise of a new technological age.
My first gripe comes with the "Movie-Musical." I'm sure you've heard about them. "The Wedding Singer: The Musical." "Legally Blonde: The Musical." All those fucking Disney shows. Are you fucking serious? Granted, it's nothing new. "Some Like It Hot" was a movie in the 1950's with Jack Lemmon and Tony Curtis before it was the stage musical "Sugar." "Sugar," however, hardly became anything to talk about. In fact while many know the movie "Some Like It Hot," few people know "Sugar." (Hell, the only reason I know of it is cause I was in it in high school). Today, however, these 'new' musicals like "Legally Blonde" and "The Wedding Singer" are being hailed as the big Broadway Blockbusters. Millions upon millions of dollars are being poured into these shows... these shows that were released as movies NOT A DECADE BEFORE! The movies did well enough in the box offices and became popular among the current culture. But WHY MAKE THEM INTO MUSICALS?!?! I can only think, someone had a good idea for music they could put to these shows. Fine, good for them. It's creative enough, I'll give them that. and I'd even respect them enough to see them on the Broadway Stage were they not being heralded as the things to see. My point: Coming up for a score to an existing work is hardly the kind of hailed originality and creativity that came out of the pens of Rodgers and Hammerstein, Leonard Bernstein, Jonathan Larson, and so on.
Now I'll digress momentarily to appease those who will say "they weren't all that original either, you elitist asshole." Thank you for not being completely ignorant to your history of theater, but neither am I. I know that many of the stories that made these people famous are retellings of other stories: "Rent" was a modernization of the opera "La Boheme." "West Side Story" was a 1950's version of Shakespeare's "Romeo And Juliet." (Hell, Shakespeare stole the story and pretty much all his other ones from the Greeks, Romans, Italians and so on!) "The King And I" was an old story retold by Rogers and Hammerstein. So on and so forth. I'll grant you, you are right; these can all be considered guilty of the same thing. However these were all retellings of old stories that had been in the public domain for decades, if not centuries. They were original in that they produced creative new ways of telling the story, new music to go with it, often new theatrical mechanics and techniques to do them, and brought new ideas to old favorites. These works revitalized the theater and introduced new audiences to enduring classics; stories that were both relevant and timeless. I'm sorry, but most of these modern movie musicals cannot claim that. They are the same asinine stories, produced to make money, and they have no ageless quality. And while they are indeed creative in their efforts to bring new music and new technical innovations to the stage, they do not carry the total art that theater was once so well respected for.
Now let's talk about the Disney shows for a second. Notice I've pretty much left them out of the bashing so far. Reason being, I respect them slightly more, and here's why. These shows are the same story as in the disney movies--which are already musicals, of course--and they do everything they can to make the stage and the characters look like what you see on the screen ("The Lion King" being an exception, we'll get to that.). I hate the fact that the commercial giant Disney has gotten their meat hooks so deeply into Broadway, but as much as their money-grubbing hands are taking the originality out of the story, they're also putting in a lot of original and innovative advancements into the art of storytelling that we would probably never have developed without them. For one, costuming. To get Disney animated characters onto the stage takes feats of costuming, and you have to respect that they do it well, or they'd not be raking it in. The biggest thing to mention when it comes to Disney shows on Broadway, however, is the technical innovations they need to invent to make these fantastical shows work in the real world stage. It is rumored that "The Little Mermaid" uses a never-before seen automations system that allows for incredible special effects. "The Lion King" invented completely knew ideas of what onstage characters had to look like and practically created a new form of puppet theater to pull it off. Let's face it. Disney's work on Broadway has been universally heralded and applauded, even though everyone can recognize the hands of greed turning the wheels. I'll give them their due. But they've already done it on the screen. I wanna see something new.
Bottom line, with regards to these movie musicals, is that they are not the originality that we should expect to see on Broadway. The movies are constantly coming out with new stories and new, original ways of telling old stories; why can't the theater? Why keep turning these sophomoric films into sophomoric stage spectacles? In the year 2008, these shows lead The Great White Way and don't deserve it. They are not the caliber of Art that used to grace Mid-Manhattan and quite frankly, never can be.
Less irksome to me, but still damn annoying, are the so-called "Jukebox Musicals." By these I mean the big shows like "Jersey Boys" (The Four Seasons Musical) "Walk The Line" (The Johnny Cash Musical) "Buddy" (The Buddy Holly Musical) "Moving Out" (inspired by the music of Billy Joel) and so on. Okay, granted. Someone got creative and told a story using the songs of one person or band. I like the idea, personally. I've wanted to do something like this with the albums "Pay Attention" by The Mighty Mighty Bosstones and "Stanley Climbfall" by Lifehouse. Most of the time, the story ends up just being the life story of the group, which can be plenty thought provoking and inspiring (as I understand it, they very often are). Other times they are stories told through the music of an artist. Can be plenty creative and such as well. Like I said before, though. I want to see something new. I know and love a lot of the songs already, sure. I may go see one of these and be very moved, I'll consent. But they are not totally new and original. I like them being on Broadway. I'll appreciate them as a creative form of theater. But lets not let them overrun the place! They need to be balanced with new, completely creative and bold musicals, like "Spring Awakening" and "RENT." Let them thrive, but not infest.
There is only one really good thing I can say, in general, about these new modern musicals: they are indeed bringing new audiences to Broadway. But what audience is it? More often than not, it's the too-dumb-to-do-anything-but-stare-at-a-screen crowd. Many can't and won't appreciate the spectacle they are seeing, for the good or the bad in them. They will watch it saying "Haha that was fun. Now I'm gonna play PS2 for a few hours (oh, excuse me... wii. I'm a bit behind in my old age of 23...). And that will be all. No further thought, just sugar for the masses to get them in the seats. And it won't last. In the failing industry of theater, it's a good idea to get people back on Broadway--don't think I don't see that. But it is a temporary solution to a lesser problem: The issue is not "how do we get people back on Broadway" but "how do we revitalize the American Musical Theater to get people excited about being on Broadway again?" These musicals will play their part in the game, no doubt, and I would love to see some of them, myself as they have tickled enough of my fancy as well as some of my disdain. However they are no substitute for truly creative musical theater. There's a reason why "RENT" ran 12 years before announcing it will be closing in June, 2008 (its ticket sales never did rebound in the last few years... the same years that "The Wedding Singer" and "Legally Blonde" opened...). There's a reason why "Spring Awakening" is becoming such a hit now. It's because a truly revolutionary idea, worked on hard enough and given what it needs, will still catch more attention than the commercial media. Why? Because it's simply better--even if it is an old story. It makes you think deeper than the skin. It's got more meat to it. Maybe it's simply shocking enough to rock you out of your contemporary complacency. Hey, isn't that part of what true Art is all about?
Everyone loves a revival of an old great. We love the new breakthroughs even more. And if you want the enjoyable-if-silly entertainment of the film musical, please just save yourself the trouble and the money and put your DVD in the player. Put the money into a piece more worth it.
*NOTE: Please feel free to respond to this with your thoughts and disagreements. I only ask that you do so in a respectful manner and provide some good arguements that you can back up a bit. I admit that this is not exactly a scholarly opinion, but it is mine all the same; please respect that. I'll be revisiting this as time goes and as you challenge my opinions. And I welcome open conversation and possible changing of ideas.
Harsh yet true. I find it sad that The Great White Way falls so short of its former glory. Of course, plenty of this is due to the changing times. The pinnacle of the visual arts is no longer the stage but the cinema. It was bound to happen, as technology grew and the motion picture became a viable art form (and as all art forms seem doomed to be manipulated by the commercial media at some point, it can be of no surprise), the stage would become a lesser form in terms of popularity and public opinion. However, one can hardly blame the movies for the death of creativity in the musical theater we are experiencing today. Broadway Musicals today have become nothing but commercialized fodder; rebuilds and revivals, knock-offs of art and charlatans of new ideas. In my opinion, the doom of the American Musical Theater has more to do with its lack of vitality in this new day and less to do with the rise of a new technological age.
My first gripe comes with the "Movie-Musical." I'm sure you've heard about them. "The Wedding Singer: The Musical." "Legally Blonde: The Musical." All those fucking Disney shows. Are you fucking serious? Granted, it's nothing new. "Some Like It Hot" was a movie in the 1950's with Jack Lemmon and Tony Curtis before it was the stage musical "Sugar." "Sugar," however, hardly became anything to talk about. In fact while many know the movie "Some Like It Hot," few people know "Sugar." (Hell, the only reason I know of it is cause I was in it in high school). Today, however, these 'new' musicals like "Legally Blonde" and "The Wedding Singer" are being hailed as the big Broadway Blockbusters. Millions upon millions of dollars are being poured into these shows... these shows that were released as movies NOT A DECADE BEFORE! The movies did well enough in the box offices and became popular among the current culture. But WHY MAKE THEM INTO MUSICALS?!?! I can only think, someone had a good idea for music they could put to these shows. Fine, good for them. It's creative enough, I'll give them that. and I'd even respect them enough to see them on the Broadway Stage were they not being heralded as the things to see. My point: Coming up for a score to an existing work is hardly the kind of hailed originality and creativity that came out of the pens of Rodgers and Hammerstein, Leonard Bernstein, Jonathan Larson, and so on.
Now I'll digress momentarily to appease those who will say "they weren't all that original either, you elitist asshole." Thank you for not being completely ignorant to your history of theater, but neither am I. I know that many of the stories that made these people famous are retellings of other stories: "Rent" was a modernization of the opera "La Boheme." "West Side Story" was a 1950's version of Shakespeare's "Romeo And Juliet." (Hell, Shakespeare stole the story and pretty much all his other ones from the Greeks, Romans, Italians and so on!) "The King And I" was an old story retold by Rogers and Hammerstein. So on and so forth. I'll grant you, you are right; these can all be considered guilty of the same thing. However these were all retellings of old stories that had been in the public domain for decades, if not centuries. They were original in that they produced creative new ways of telling the story, new music to go with it, often new theatrical mechanics and techniques to do them, and brought new ideas to old favorites. These works revitalized the theater and introduced new audiences to enduring classics; stories that were both relevant and timeless. I'm sorry, but most of these modern movie musicals cannot claim that. They are the same asinine stories, produced to make money, and they have no ageless quality. And while they are indeed creative in their efforts to bring new music and new technical innovations to the stage, they do not carry the total art that theater was once so well respected for.
Now let's talk about the Disney shows for a second. Notice I've pretty much left them out of the bashing so far. Reason being, I respect them slightly more, and here's why. These shows are the same story as in the disney movies--which are already musicals, of course--and they do everything they can to make the stage and the characters look like what you see on the screen ("The Lion King" being an exception, we'll get to that.). I hate the fact that the commercial giant Disney has gotten their meat hooks so deeply into Broadway, but as much as their money-grubbing hands are taking the originality out of the story, they're also putting in a lot of original and innovative advancements into the art of storytelling that we would probably never have developed without them. For one, costuming. To get Disney animated characters onto the stage takes feats of costuming, and you have to respect that they do it well, or they'd not be raking it in. The biggest thing to mention when it comes to Disney shows on Broadway, however, is the technical innovations they need to invent to make these fantastical shows work in the real world stage. It is rumored that "The Little Mermaid" uses a never-before seen automations system that allows for incredible special effects. "The Lion King" invented completely knew ideas of what onstage characters had to look like and practically created a new form of puppet theater to pull it off. Let's face it. Disney's work on Broadway has been universally heralded and applauded, even though everyone can recognize the hands of greed turning the wheels. I'll give them their due. But they've already done it on the screen. I wanna see something new.
Bottom line, with regards to these movie musicals, is that they are not the originality that we should expect to see on Broadway. The movies are constantly coming out with new stories and new, original ways of telling old stories; why can't the theater? Why keep turning these sophomoric films into sophomoric stage spectacles? In the year 2008, these shows lead The Great White Way and don't deserve it. They are not the caliber of Art that used to grace Mid-Manhattan and quite frankly, never can be.
Less irksome to me, but still damn annoying, are the so-called "Jukebox Musicals." By these I mean the big shows like "Jersey Boys" (The Four Seasons Musical) "Walk The Line" (The Johnny Cash Musical) "Buddy" (The Buddy Holly Musical) "Moving Out" (inspired by the music of Billy Joel) and so on. Okay, granted. Someone got creative and told a story using the songs of one person or band. I like the idea, personally. I've wanted to do something like this with the albums "Pay Attention" by The Mighty Mighty Bosstones and "Stanley Climbfall" by Lifehouse. Most of the time, the story ends up just being the life story of the group, which can be plenty thought provoking and inspiring (as I understand it, they very often are). Other times they are stories told through the music of an artist. Can be plenty creative and such as well. Like I said before, though. I want to see something new. I know and love a lot of the songs already, sure. I may go see one of these and be very moved, I'll consent. But they are not totally new and original. I like them being on Broadway. I'll appreciate them as a creative form of theater. But lets not let them overrun the place! They need to be balanced with new, completely creative and bold musicals, like "Spring Awakening" and "RENT." Let them thrive, but not infest.
There is only one really good thing I can say, in general, about these new modern musicals: they are indeed bringing new audiences to Broadway. But what audience is it? More often than not, it's the too-dumb-to-do-anything-but-stare-at-a-screen crowd. Many can't and won't appreciate the spectacle they are seeing, for the good or the bad in them. They will watch it saying "Haha that was fun. Now I'm gonna play PS2 for a few hours (oh, excuse me... wii. I'm a bit behind in my old age of 23...). And that will be all. No further thought, just sugar for the masses to get them in the seats. And it won't last. In the failing industry of theater, it's a good idea to get people back on Broadway--don't think I don't see that. But it is a temporary solution to a lesser problem: The issue is not "how do we get people back on Broadway" but "how do we revitalize the American Musical Theater to get people excited about being on Broadway again?" These musicals will play their part in the game, no doubt, and I would love to see some of them, myself as they have tickled enough of my fancy as well as some of my disdain. However they are no substitute for truly creative musical theater. There's a reason why "RENT" ran 12 years before announcing it will be closing in June, 2008 (its ticket sales never did rebound in the last few years... the same years that "The Wedding Singer" and "Legally Blonde" opened...). There's a reason why "Spring Awakening" is becoming such a hit now. It's because a truly revolutionary idea, worked on hard enough and given what it needs, will still catch more attention than the commercial media. Why? Because it's simply better--even if it is an old story. It makes you think deeper than the skin. It's got more meat to it. Maybe it's simply shocking enough to rock you out of your contemporary complacency. Hey, isn't that part of what true Art is all about?
Everyone loves a revival of an old great. We love the new breakthroughs even more. And if you want the enjoyable-if-silly entertainment of the film musical, please just save yourself the trouble and the money and put your DVD in the player. Put the money into a piece more worth it.
*NOTE: Please feel free to respond to this with your thoughts and disagreements. I only ask that you do so in a respectful manner and provide some good arguements that you can back up a bit. I admit that this is not exactly a scholarly opinion, but it is mine all the same; please respect that. I'll be revisiting this as time goes and as you challenge my opinions. And I welcome open conversation and possible changing of ideas.