Mega-Musicals- Page 2

[Gothampc]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 11:56am

Harriet the Spy

[jnb9872]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 12:18pm

I for one am surprised more classic rock operas haven't followed TOMMY's footsteps. I know people would freak if a legit production of THE WALL was done on an epic scale but I personally don't care for that album/story.

What about THE RISE AND FALL OF ZIGGY STARDUST AND THE SPIDERS FROM MARS, THE LAMB LIES DOWN ON BROADWAY (Julie Taymor get on that ****), or JOE'S GARAGE.

Jeff Wayne has been touring his WAR OF THE WORLDS for years, what about a full scale epic production of that hot mess?

Or, my personal pet project, I'd love to see a full-scale adaptation of Drive-By Truckers' SOUTHERN ROCK OPERA.

ETA: Yes, yes a thousand times yes to BAT OUT OF HELL.

Updated On: 1/6/14 at 12:18 PM

[darquegk]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 12:25pm

Now that My Chemical Romance has broken up, this would be the perfect time to get Gerard Way as Roger Pinkerton, the lead, in THE WALL.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 8:24pm

Absolutely, it's (spectacle is) less important than a good story well told. But I don't believe the existence of visual spectacle, or of shows that depend for some of their impact on the visual presentation, cheapens the art form.

Nor do I, darquegk. And I admit I loved the original SWEENEY TODD as much as its sparser revivals. Ditto RAGTIME and the Houston Grand Opera's PORGY AND BESS. But I don't believe any of those productions started with the thought, "Let's do a mega-musical." Rather the interpreters eventually found spectacle necessary to fully dramatize the action.

Personally, I was more in awe of what James Lapine did with a few chairs and doors in MARCH OF THE FALSETTOS than any spectacle-based show I have ever seen.

The best representation is merely suggested on stage and fully realized in our minds. When everything including the kitchen sink is thrown on stage, the audience members become sightseers (in the shallowest sense of the word) rather than participants.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 8:57pm

"Absolutely, it's less important than a good story well told. But I don't believe the existence of visual spectacle, or of shows that depend for some of their impact on the visual presentation, cheapens the art form."

I agree, I think it has a legit place. There's something to be said for the visceral, and yes theatrical thrill that really powerful spectacle can give. Of course I suppose some of that depends on your idea of spectacle (I mean I would even place something like the painting coming together in Sunday in the Park as a sort of visual spectacle.)

[broadwayworldreader]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 9:07pm

I've always thought that Nightmare Before Christmas could be really cool on stage. Of course, Danny Elfman would still have to be involved a la any Disney show where he would use existing material as write new additional songs.

[twinbelters]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 9:31pm

My Dinner With Andre

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 10:42pm

Of course I suppose some of that depends on your idea of spectacle (I mean I would even place something like the painting coming together in Sunday in the Park as a sort of visual spectacle.)

As you know, SUNDAY isn't my favorite show, but I certainly agree it is an excellent example of using spectacle to convey action. And ultimately, that should be the test of spectacle: does it help convey the action or is it there to distract us from lack of content.

[mjohnson2]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 11:14pm

I seriously think the Nightmare Before Christmas could be amazing.

[darquegk]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 11:19pm

Remember, spectacle isn't the most accurate translation of what Aristotle meant in his Poetics. "Visual adornment" or "that which is looked at" is a closer translation: in other words, the fully physical production. Staging, dances, everything that is not the text or the expression of the text and characters by the actors is "spectacle" to Aristotle.

I consider Peter and the Starcatcher as much a spectacle show in its way as Ghost, to name-drop two shows I will cover or have covered for this site this year. Both have texts and presentations that are dependent on the visceral thrill/shock value of seeing something you did not expect to see. Starcatcher does it low-tech with an inventive story-theatre based set, while Ghost does it high-tech with puppeteering, illusions, stage magic and a mechanized set. But both have in common the fact that (unlike a less "physical" show like Rent, Oklahoma or anything by Shakespeare) Aristotle's spectacle is a necessary and vital portion of their play at a near-textual level. Take away the "looking" and you lose something from the appeal of those shows- but that doesn't make them BAD shows.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/7/14 at 9:28pm

darque, oh, darque, my friend: you show me your umpteen translations of Aristotle's POETICS and I will show you mine! LOL. Yes, of course, you are right that by "spectacle", Aristotle means everything on stage that is perceived by the eyes (with one possible exception: see * below).

I always figure I'm on thin ice if I mention classic principles; I haven't the temerity to try to maintain two definitions of the same word in a single thread.

And given the reported taste of the 4th Century B.C.E. Athenian public for large casts and theatrical machinery over writers like Sophocles and Euripides, I'm not entirely sure Aristotle would feel out of place in this conversation where "spectacle" means sumptuous visuals and special effects. (As I'm sure you also know, many if not most commentators believe Aristotle spent his time reading scripts from the previous century rather than actually attending the theater.)

Obviously, I agree with Aristotle's view (if it was indeed his view). To me, there is nothing wrong with the circus, an ice show or the Rose Parade, but they are different art forms from the theater.

***

Confidential to darque: I think it is patently obvious that Aristotle never had access to an equivalent of the modern director. Had he witnessed a production by Meyerlink, Piscator, Reinhart, Champion, Fosse, Prince, Bennett, etc., Aristotle would surely have agreed that the spectacle of their staging was as central to conveying action as the spoken word.

Had Aristotle known of such a craft, I suspect we would have 7 elements of tragedy instead of 6.

* One other note and IIRC: many commentators believe Aristotle meant to include the dancing of the chorus as part of music, since Greek in his day used the same word for rhythm and dance. If you read his treatise on different types of music and their effects on our emotions (I believe it's in THE RHETORIC), you'll see what I mean. Not that I think you need to go to that trouble.

[darquegk]

Posted: 1/7/14 at 10:40pm

I suspect that some of my recent fascination with the line between "show with spectacle" and "spectacle show" comes from having spent so long recently studying the texts of musicals as part of a dissertation. When I actually started spending a lot of time WATCHING musicals as opposed to simply studying and performing them, I realized how sometimes what you see and what you read can be drastically different animals, as in the oft-discussed appearance of the neon sign at the end of Gypsy. That sign flickering on or not changes the ending from a happy one to a bittersweet.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/7/14 at 11:14pm

Indeed. And that is especially true of the modern American musical.