Why do critics....?

[jczelyph]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 8:01am

I live in the UK, and I keep up-to-date with what's happening in musical theatre in the US by reading reviews, reading messageboards and visiting sites like broadwayworld.com.

I get a general feeling that most people who claim to be big fans of musical theatre are unsatisfied with what's on offer on Broadway right now. If you read appraisals of 'Brooklyn' or 'Wicked' online, you can expect to find two different types of review. One type written by slightly disturbing obsessive 14 year-olds getting histrionic over Elphaba and some 'flying' special effects. These are typically poorly constructed and use phrases like "WICKED is wikid! I luv wikid" in a non-ironic sense. To someone searching for a quality appraisal of a production, these are of little value. The second type of review is written by gay men or slightly embittered straight women (think Miss Havisham and you're there) aged around 23 - 40. These, more often than not are damning with faint praise. One can expect to read phrases like: "The music is utterly generic, derivative and lackluster" or "a bloated production that might otherwise spend close to three hours flapping its oversized wings without taking off." To an observer, these are of more value as they appear to have been considered and well-thought out. Alas, they are rarely positive so our casual observer is left feeling that the theatrical cognoscenti have been to see another bad show. He assumes the show to be of poor quality and debates going to see something else...

Anyway, illustration over, less often than not, I find myself hearing about the awful state of Broadway in the millenium. 'Fans' mourning the passing of a Golden era; authors write books lamenting the horror of the last 25 years of Broadway. I was curious as to why everyone thinks theatre these days is in such a bad way. If companies are producing shows like Wicked and Aida, then there must be an element of demand for them, no?

One hears cries of 'Disneyfication' and 'corruption' of musical theatre... If the mass public want to see these shows, then it may be suggested that perhaps the detractors of modern Broadway are searching for an anachronism? Stuck in a theatrical rut, incapable of appreciating the new form of Broadway shows? Perhaps even, that whatever paragon of theatre they imagine and desire the return of is not even relevant to Broadway anymore?

Basically, what this post is asking is 'what's so wrong with Broadway these days'? To an outsider, it would appear that The Great White Way is on a descent into oblivion. Shows are more often than not slated on opening (except by the hysterical 14 year-olds). What's so bad with the 'popular' shows that are playing right now? Are critics slamming shows needlessly? Is it en vogue in theatre circles to hold populist entertainment in contempt? Explain this to a Brit who is left wondering "what's wrong?"

Oh yeah, and tell my why ALW is so reviled...

*****

Does that post even make sense? Thanks for reading.....

Updated On: 10/21/04 at 08:01 AM

[ken8631]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 8:08am

Maybe I'm in the minority then - I'm a 49 year old male who enjoys heading to Broadway with his wife. And we still enjoy it and expect to continue to do so. Saw "Fiddler on the Roof" last night since I wanted to see it just because it's a classic and I never saw it (in movie form either). It was excellent. Alfred Molina doesn't have an overpowering voice, but his acting was superb! And the music was great! Anyway, we have tickets to other shows, on and off Broadway, and enjoy it immensely. Some shows are great, others so-so, but we feel lucky to have it so close (we are in NJ) and can visit often. I like this board due to lots of info and differing opinions. Seeing Showstoppers at Lincoln Center on Monday night - looking forward to it!

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 8:09am

I don't see anything wrong with Broadway these days. It is going through one of its phases. Broadway is getting more modern and high tech, with shows like Wicked, Bombay Dreams, Hairspray, and Mamma Mia!

People are complaining that there needs to be more original material. The people who have grown up around theater have been saying this. We have to accept the fact that Broadway is a business and that it changes.

[jczelyph]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 8:11am

I'm glad you still enjoy theatre. I wish I lived as close to the City as you. Unfortunately, If I want to see something on Broadway, it would cost me the price of the ticket, plus around £200 to fly over. As a poor student, I can't afford that. Oh well, I'll make do with The Woman In White in London.

Perhaps I was a little quick to make assumptions about potential audiences... It's just that when I read these boards, I do get an overall negative feeling from people who write serious posts (i.e. not the 14 year-olds).

I hope I'm wrong...

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 8:25am

Plus lunch and/or dinner. Believe me, it's not cheap. I am not a native NYer, so I would buy everything in advance (such as Bway tickets), and wouldn't risk losing lottery or going to TKTS (what if I don't get what I came for?). If I buy my tickets in advance, at least I can choose where I want to sit, and if they don't have anything available, I don't have to go that day.

For my birthday last year, my family and I went to see Thoroughly Modern Millie (with a discount) plus lunch at TGIFriday's. With train tickets, it cost about half the amount we would spend on a cottage rental for a week in Cape Cod.

[jczelyph]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 8:33am

But more fun though!

I visit the City a few times a year to meet-up with friends and stuff. I'm usually around for about 2 weeks and I try to see as much as possible. Last time I visited I saw Wicked, Rent (3rd time), Aida, Avenue Q and Bombay Dreams. And I really enjoyed every single one of them in different ways.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 8:39am

Hell, it's worth it! Great times, great times.

[pab]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 8:57am

I've been going to Broadway for over twenty years and on a recent trip I did a theatre marathon and saw 13 shows in 9 nights which cost me a pretty penny. I am in theatre and I feel that people on this board who criticize (including me) do it because we want the BEST to continue to come to, and be on, Broadway. For any Broadway trip that I take, it's the cost of a round trip ticket (usually two), hotel (there are no cheap hotels in NYC), food and the theatre tickets (prepaid so usually full price tickets but sometimes a discount). For that kind of trip, I don't want to feel that I have wasted my money seeing some crappy show that I could have seen at home. Some of the negative feelings, at this time, are because, out of ten new shows, maybe two of them really deserve to be on Broadway (in our opinion) and when we feel that they do deserve to be there we fight for them all the way. There are a lot of mediocre and bad stuff out there trying to break through and I think that a lot of people on this board are just very passionate about theatre. When I was a theatre student in the late 70s I heard some of these same comments that I am hearing today about Broadway - how it's dying - how a lot of are shows are crap - there is nothing original - but through it all Broadway continued and will continue, and every once in while something new, brilliant, exciting and original will come along and it's all worth it.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 9:50am

I have always envied people who live in the UK because they have some wonderful theater. The National Theatre, Royal Shakespeare Company, Edinburgh Fringe Festival. In these venues, you can see amazing performances by talented actors.

In the U.S. the specific goal is to make money and all productions reflect that. Broadway loses good actors, writers and directors because they move to movies or tv in order to make a better living. Hence, we are stuck with mediocre productions.

Part of this money making scheme is that they are taking already tried and true material and mounting it. So there are so many musical version of movies. There's nothing wrong with that, but for the people who enjoy theater on a more intellectual level there are not that many offerings.

I think ALW is so reviled because there has been too much of his work. Cats, Phantom, endless tours of Joseph and JCS, I think people become saturated and get tired of it. Additionally, his music does repeat itself, not only within a musical, but once you know his body of work, you hear the same musical phrases in other works and it tends to get repetitive.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 11:55am

American musical theatre enthusiasts have a tendency to focus only on certain periods of Broadway history without taking into account the numerous lows along the way and use the highs as some sort of benchmark for comparison. Musical theatre is equally business and art. While most musicals never turn a profit (which has been the norm since the birth of Broadway), several tend to use profits as another means of judging shows. Art and business trends shift from one decade to the next with the advancements of communication and technology as well as with the social, political and economic climates of the era. So, comparing current Broadway shows with those from the past is more of a bitter and pointless exercise. If everyone wrote like Sondheim, musical theatre would be very dull. If all shows were designed strictly for high art and education with little focus on amusement, spectacle and entertainment, then musical theatre would be denying its origins and Broadway would probably dry up very quickly.

When discussing Broadway, most critics (and snobs) focus on the music, book and lyrics. I recognize the importance of these for certain shows such as the recent Caroline, or Change, but at the same time, I chastise those who forget that costume, set and lighting designers are also artists who create the gorgeous atmospheres the spectacles are known for. I liked Wicked. It was cute and fun. The book has its problems and to me, the score is uneven, but the aesthetics of its design are unquestionably superior, yet in discussion, often overlooked. When people mock a show for have "little substance" and relying on spectacle to bring in an audience, they are thumbing their noses at the designers who created the stunning world in which we can briefly escape. Every costume from a set of rags in Les Miserable to the universally recognized half-mask of the Phantom was specifically created for that show and nothing else and it irks me to no end that for some reason, they are treated as being the most unimportant aspects of a musical when a show is ripped apart by theatre snobs.

Also, many shows with long runs or are extremely popular are criticized simply because many think it makes them seem cool or intelligent to disagree with the tastes of the tourists or general public. Broadway musicals originated as popular entertainment with little to no book as showcases for music, dancing, and breathtaking sets and costumes. Shows like Show Boat, West Side Story, Gypsy and Sweeney Todd are anomalies, yet critics treat them as if they should be the norm. Why? It's true that we don't have as many shows opening per season as in the Golden Age or the thirties, but then, they didn't have hundreds of movie theatres with multiple screens, televisions in every home, VCRs, DVDs, or other reasonably priced media of entertainment. Sure, Broadway hosted the openings of up to 50 musicals per season in the old days, but it is because shows did not run as long and more people went to the theatre because there were very few options for other forms of entertainment. This is something the historians prefer not to mention. Broadway has to compete with films, television, pop stars, sports, stand-up comedians, PlayStations, computers, etc. and Broadway seems to be holding up pretty well to its rather abundant and fierce competition.

"I have always envied people who live in the UK because they have some wonderful theater. The National Theatre, Royal Shakespeare Company, Edinburgh Fringe Festival. In these venues, you can see amazing performances by talented actors."

NYC has the Lincoln Center, Manhattan Theatre Club, New York Fringe Festival, Playwrights Horizons, Roundabout and many other wonderful companies with plenty of opportunity to see amazing performances by talented actors as well. Not everything in the UK is wonderful, either. The grass is always greener...

"In the U.S. the specific goal is to make money and all productions reflect that. Broadway loses good actors, writers and directors because they move to movies or tv in order to make a better living. Hence, we are stuck with mediocre productions."

Depends on your view of mediocrity. The blanket generalization of "all productions reflect that" leads me to believe that you think there simply is no decent Broadway show ever. I think fans of Caroline, or Change, Assassins, Cabaret and any other show deemed as intelligent and/or artistic productions by even the most discriminating critics would think maybe your standards are a little too high.

As for Lloyd Webber, he is an easy target. He started the "British invasion" of the 80s that dominated Broadway in a country that prides itself on giving birth to one of its few successful native forms of art, the musical.

Broadway is not dead or dying. It is doing what it has done for over 100 years. It is entertaining the masses and occasionally educating them along the way. It is artistically evolving and paying tribute to its past.

Updated On: 10/21/04 at 11:55 AM

[LoringsGuy]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 12:09pm

Mister Matt, I love you. Awesome post!

[dry2olives]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 12:20pm

There are good reasons why people like myself place more importance on the book, music and lyrics than the other creative aspects of a musical. The writers are those that fill the blank page. They start from nothing and create. Every other creative aspect of a musical is an interpretation of the book, music and lyrics. When future productions of a show are done they will most likely not have the benefit of a certain actor's performance, a certain designer's ideas or a certain choreographer's work. What remains after a Broadway show closes are the book, music and lyrics. They are the structure upon which everything else is built. I know there are others who do not place so much importance on these factors, but as for my personal taste, whether it's escapist fluff or complex drama I can't imagine a musical being entertaining or interesting without good writing.

[jczelyph]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 12:27pm

Mister Matt: that was a really good post. I wholeheartedly agree with you concerning the issue of critics (and snobs) ignoring the 'spectacle' aspect of a show, as if somehow the music, book and lyrics are intellectually and artistically superior to the elements of design. Thanks for providing some well-considered examples of this.

I'm currently reading Ethan Mordden's 'The Happiest Corpse I've Ever Seen' and he raises a similar point as you do when he highlights criticism of popular shows masquerading as intellect. He says [talking about people moaning about the pop opera genre] "In some cases this may simply reveal a distaste for opera that these detractors didn't know they had. They probably wouldn't like La Traviata or Fidelio anymore than they like Les Miserables, but social context keeps them from admitting it. Detesting - more precisely, disestablishing - Les Miserables is a prerequisite for intellectual probity; to scoff at Verdi or Beethoven makes one look stupid."

I'm glad to hear Broadway isn't dead or dying!

[Pip]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 12:31pm

I can understand your frustration, jczelyph, because it IS difficult to get an unbiased perspective from afar. Critics, by nature, are critical...and, I believe, are sometimes jaded just from the fact that they have the opportunity to see everything that is out there to see. It certainly makes them more discerning, I'm sure. Their opinions, however, are not necessarily reflective of the "masses", and that gets proven time and again by what is financially successful and what isn't.
I notice that you are a new member. If you are new to BroadwayWorld.com I suggest that you use the search feature and read as much as you can that has been posted by MargoChanning. This board is blessed having "her" (actually him) here because his reviews of theatre today and past are masterful, illuminating, and very fair...with opinions always well supported. I hope that he will take time to respond in this thread because you will find his perspective incredibly valuable.

BTW...I loved the "think Miss Havisham and you're there" reference. She is near and dear to "Pip's" heart!!

[pab]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 12:33pm

"The Play's the Thing".

William Shakespeare

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 12:36pm

dry2olives - I would agree with you on your point regarding music and lyrics with regards to shows with original scores, of course, but the overwhelming majority of musicals are adaptations of other material, so like the design aspects, it is the written interpretation of the source. I do believe they are probably the most important elements of musical theatre, but my point is that most of the other creative elements are often completely ignored or dismissed with remarks along the lines of, "yeah, it's pretty to look at, but so what?" Audiences remember the amazing physical feats of falling chandeliers and helicopters because they ARE amazing. It is mind-boggling to think that not only did someone believe it could be done, but that someone actually made it happen when it was previously an unthinkable notion. I applaud the aspects of the show that amaze me equally be it music, lyrics, choreography or design.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 12:48pm

jczelyph - That is a very interesting quote and is food for thought. It makes me think of how people off-handedly compare the "classic" writers to the contemporary or shows like Sweeney Todd to Aida or Wicked. Musical theatre is an art form that has broadened itself to include eras, subgenres and styles. Comparing George Gershwin to Elton John is like trying to compare Bach to Madonna. They both wrote "popular" music, but for different in different styles and eras, yet both are considered well-respected within their subgenres. Likewise, to compare Caroline, or Change to Wicked is equally futile. They both are Broadway musicals that opened in the same season, but written for entirely different reasons in entirely different styles in vastly different subgenres. Unfortunately, the Tonys cannot make allowances for these various artistic aspects, which causes fans to believe that every musical is somehow in competition with each other (which is true in a business sense, but not artistically).

[dry2olives]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 1:18pm

Mister Matt -- I think you have the potential for disaster if designers are creating their work based on original sources rather than the material created for the stage. Authors who adapt other works often utilize a different tone and story line in order to make the piece work as a musical. Designs for Wicked, The Producers and Thoroughly Modern Millie, for example, would probably look very different if they were based on their source material and not the adaptations written for the stage.

A falling chandelier or a helicopter may be an amazing feat, but it takes good writing for me to feel any emotion other than being impressed with the technical achievement. I can appreciate a singer's voice, a designer's costume or a technical feat as well as anybody, but I need writers to give me the emotional tugging that makes me feel I'm watching a good musical, rather than a musical that has a good singer or a good design.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 2:56pm

dry2olives - What I meant was (but worded incorrectly), that both both writers and designers are creating interpretations based on someone else's idea (with the exception of musicals with original books), but the way I said it came out wrong.

For me, sometimes the design can bring out emotions as strongly as the writing. It can sometimes provide a thrill in the same way as riding a rollercoaster, perhaps. There is a sense of excitement, giddiness and joy when faced with some incredible designs. For example, I'm not a fan of the book or score for Phantom of the opera, but when the theatre assembles itself at the beginning and the chandelier falls at the end of the first act, I was overwhelmed by the artistry of its aesthetic and ingenuity in design. I saw it again strictly for the visual aspects of the show.

[jczelyph]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 10:30pm

Pip: thanks for your response... I appreciate your point that critics are "by nature, critical....are jaded just by the fact that they have the opportunity to see everything out there that there is to see" However, i would contest that surely someone whose job it is to professionally appraise theatre should be able to resist becoming jaded simply because they see a lot of material. If it is one's job to review a show, the surely one's readers would appreciate a response from the viewpoint of someone who is not so over-exposed to theatre that they have become jaded to everything Broadway has to offer. The average reader isn't someone who has "the opportunity to see everything that is out there to see" and therefore the critic's viewpoint should come from a position relevant to his reader? I appreciate your allusion to the member MargoChanning, however perhaps you will notice that although I am new to the board in posting, I have been reading the board long enough to have quoted MargoChanning (albeit un-referenced) in my original post ("The music is utterly generic, derivative and lackluster")
and do already value him (/her...who cares) input. It is interesting to read his metered, if persistently negative reviews. As for being "blessed" with his input, in Tim Rice's immortal words, perhaps that's a "step too far". Whoever he is and however amazing his diatribes, it would be interesting to read his perspective on the questions posed in my original post. I hope that didn't sound like a challenge because I am not looing forward to facing the wrath of MargoChanning board fanclub... I would truly appreciate his input here.

Mister Matt: I think you sum it up when you highlight the fact that because one show is classified as musical theatre, it must be compared to another, also classified as musical theatre. The typical audience for Wicked is unlikely to be a typical audience for Caroline Or Change. Not that either represents an intellectual superiority, it's just that some people prefer the amazing spectacle of Wicked, whereas others prefer the limbic workout of Caroline Or Change. Critics (and snobs) are intellectually suspect if they consciously compare shows of these subgenres for the purposes of naysaying...

Updated On: 10/21/04 at 10:30 PM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 11:28pm

Since my name has been invoked, I will respond, but just to the statement that I give "metered, if persistently depressing reviews." Theatre in New York City is much, much more than what's going on in the 500+ seat houses located between 41st and 66th Streets in Manhattan. I have been an early and consistent supporter of several shows playing there, such as the recently departed Caroline or Change, Urinetown and The Frogs (to take three examples -- and I was one of the few who consistently promoted the last of that list) as well as the currently running Hairspray, The Producers, Movin Out, I Am My Own Wife, Golda's Balcony, Chicago, and Avenue Q (though all of those shows opened prior to my joining BWW). I've rarely offered an opinion whatsoever on Rent or Wicked -- given those shows' legions of supporters and detractors, it seems unnecessary.

To the extent I have any useful function on this site whatsoever (and that is most certainly debatable), I've always hoped it was to try to be the cheerleader for and champion of the theatre that is routinely overlooked by the vast majority of the people on these boards. Nothing I can say here can hurt or help a multi-million dollar commercial production playing in the Broadway district one iota -- no chat board has that kind of power. But those smaller, financially tenuous, usually more daring and challenging shows that play Off- and Off-Off-Broadway, at Festivals, in Harlem, in the outer boroughs etc... can use all of the positive word of mouth that they can get. So when I encounter a good one, I try and make a point of spreading the word here in hopes somebody will take a chance and go off the well-trodden and well-beaten path that almost inevitably leads to Broadway for most of the folks here.

In consideration of that, please do a search and take a gander at my oh-so "depressing" opinions of:

Well (Off)
Bug (Off)
A Raisin In The Sun (Broadway)
Jumpers (Broadway)
A Midsummer Night's Dream (BAM)
The First Lady Suite (Off-Off)
Intimate Apparel (Off)
Blackbird (Off)
Only We Who Guard The Mystery (Off)
Homebody/Kabul (BAM)
The Kathy & Mo Show (Off)
Rose Rage (Off)
The Oldest Profession (Off)
Mrs. Farnsworth (Off)
Marry Me A Little (Off)
The Diary of Adam & Eve (Off)
Us By Tim Miller (Off-Off)
The Bicycle Men (Fringe)
Shorts (Fringe)
Irish Authors Held Hostage (Fringe)
CVR (Off-Off)
Caligula (NYMF)
God or Merman (NYMF)
Three Sistahs (NYMF)
Kiki & Herb (Carnegie Hall)
Dirty Tricks (Off)
Ain't Supposed To Die A Natural Death (Off)

That's 27 shows I gave positive reviews to. 27. Please name one other person on this board who had positive things to say about 27 different shows in the last six months (I've only been a member since April).

"metered, if persistently depressing reviews"

Please do your homework before you make such damning statements against someone in the future.

Updated On: 10/21/04 at 11:28 PM

[andyf]

Posted: 10/21/04 at 11:34pm

....I...LOVE...MARGO.


There's nothing like someone who knows his or her sh*t.
I cannot believe you pulled out ALL of your positive reviews.

Love everything about it.

[jczelyph]

Posted: 10/22/04 at 6:27am

Bugger. Foiled by poor research! That'll teach a BWW 'swing' like to me to play with fire... Apologies to MargoChanning for being a mouthy whippersnapper. I guess your reviews aren't "persistently depressing" at all - scant appraisal of sources has lead to me making mistakes. I hope I haven't earned the permanent scorn of one of the board's most salubrious contributors...

Even though one aspect of my posts is dealth with (hence, for the final time to ensure no confusion: MargoChanning does NOT give persistently depressing reviews and is a theatre philanthropist with 27 positive reviews in the past 6 months), I'm interested to hear what other people (or MargoChanning) have to say about other parts of my posts.