Why I'm becoming perturbed with "What should I see?"

[Necromancer07707]

Posted: 4/3/06 at 11:24pm

People are considering only the mainstream, when they've already been exposed to it/seen the shows before. People really need to begin broadening their horizons. Theatre is becoming so constricted that I feel within 20 years from now even an out of the ordinary production of SWEENEY (such as the current production) will be inconceivable to produce or will fail immediately because it will be too out of the mainstream. Hell, even "Waiting for Godot" is tame for some of the material out there. But it never receives any attention. Why can't audiences face the unfamiliar like in the old days?

Oh God look at me, an 18 year old talking about the old days...

[Isabella2]

Posted: 4/3/06 at 11:34pm

i agree... it also has to do with the price of tickets. I was watching a PBS special not too long ago explaining that broadway was natural to the new yorker. In the early 1900's a movie was a dollar and a broadway show was 85 cents (honestly, i'm having a hard time beleiving that.) I just think that if broadway wasn't so horribly expensive to the middle class or lower middle class people would be open to seeing all sorts of shows and not just a few of the same.
Updated On: 9/6/06 at 11:34 PM

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 4/3/06 at 11:36pm

not only that, but it would be great if posters read the FAQ before starting another "what should I see" thread. although, it could use an update or two...

[liotte]

Posted: 4/3/06 at 11:38pm

I'm just sick of the sheer number of threads asking "What should I see?"

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 4/3/06 at 11:39pm

Isn't that why BWW has a fantastic feature of video previews - WHAT SHOULD I SEE? Watch the feckin videos!

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 4/3/06 at 11:40pm

" Why can't audiences face the unfamiliar like in the old days?"

They did that? Well, that's news to me.

Not disagreeing with your sentiment...I also wish audiences would go see Sweeney Todd and something like Bernarda Alba instead of Mamma Mia and Hairspray, but I think people have ALWAYS been that way.

[Necromancer07707]

Posted: 4/3/06 at 11:40pm

Regarding prices, I recently wrote a paper on how this is leading to the downfall of theatre. Unfortunately it's hand written, so I can't put it in it's entirety here, but the gist is that the audience is getting older and older because parents cannot afford to take their children to shows any more. And the adults only go to the shows because they were able to attend them as children. The audience of American theatre is dying quickly. Also consider the fact that so much funding comes from individuals who donate money to the arts. And how old are thaty, 70, 80, 90? When our generation reaches that age will they really care enough about theatre to make such donations?

I could go alot into the use of special effects in theatre resulting in the death of live performance as well, but I don't really have the time to do so. Keep the feed back coming, I appreciate it.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 4/4/06 at 12:56am

While I somewhat agree, I don't think the problem is as bad as people say. "Sweeney Todd" recouped and is doing great business and its a very non-mainstream production. "Bernarda Alba" is doing good business and it also isn't mainstream. I agree that their aren't a huge number of producers willing to take a chance, but maybe with these successes producers will start to open up and realize that shows like "Ring of Fire" just don't work. It also probably has to do with the fact that commercial Off-Broadway just doesn't work. And that's where most experimental theater ends up, though with that not working, who knows what will happen.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 4/4/06 at 1:36am

Sweeney Todd is doing great, Tony winner Patti Lupone stars in the Broadway production and the musical is by Sondheim, what is not mainstream about it?

[allofmylife]

Posted: 4/4/06 at 1:57am

Necromancer07707

It's amazing to realize my mother, my father and I all got to see a Broadway show with change back from a twenty dollar bill. Even when you calculate the buying power of a 20 in the 60's, that was still pretty cheap. Three front row seats would have been less than 50 bucks. The relative value of 20 dollars in 1966 would be 119.85 now and there's no way to buy three front row seats for that today. Wow.

And as for why are there so many "what should I see?" queries, I think a great deal of young kids use this site and let's encourage them if possible. Especially since they're ready to commit so much money to Broadway.

Updated On: 4/4/06 at 01:57 AM

[Unmasked05]

Posted: 4/4/06 at 4:03am

I couldn't agree more with you Allmylife

You guys can't forget that alot of students use this site and they are investing alot of money to go see a show. I'm from a middle class family myself and I will so myself be on here asking all of you fellow New Yorkes "What Should I See"...I live ALONG way from New York and I want to invest my hard earned money into good shows. To tell you the truth if I didn't know much about "Bernardo Alba" or even "Sweeney Todd"...I probably would go see something "commercial" like "The Lion King", "POTO", "Beauty and The Beast", and "CHICAGO"..you know stuff that people know.

Students come and ask "WHAT SHOULD I SEE" because you guys give GREAT informationon on shows that we normally wouldn't see. Then we can do some research on the show and get more info. Sometimes your opinions count.

Don't bash people that say "What Should I See"...tell them what they should see and encourage them to support theatre..because thats whats really needed, support for theatre period.

[Bruce Memblagh!]

Posted: 4/4/06 at 4:29am

"Regarding prices, I recently wrote a paper on how this is leading to the downfall of theatre. Unfortunately it's hand written, so I can't put it in it's entirety here, but the gist is that the audience is getting older and older because parents cannot afford to take their children to shows any more. And the adults only go to the shows because they were able to attend them as children. The audience of American theatre is dying quickly. Also consider the fact that so much funding comes from individuals who donate money to the arts. And how old are thaty, 70, 80, 90? When our generation reaches that age will they really care enough about theatre to make such donations? "


I am sure your paper had a stronger justification for your (dramatic, ironically) claim about the "downfall of theater" as well as a more coherent argument/analysis of many other factors. In addition, this notion about theater's downfall has been recycled endless times over the past few decades, and very much in public, too

[Faith2]

Posted: 4/4/06 at 4:56am

Necromancer07707, you are a very wise 18 year old.

I totally agree with your opening post, and I love your signature as well.


Peace,
Faith2 a.k.a.
Joyce from Chicago

[Necromancer07707]

Posted: 4/4/06 at 10:56am

the current production of SWEENEY TOD really isn't all that alternative from the mainstream. Especially considering the fact that this style of theatre is being actively pursued. But what about theatre of the absurd? Who even has a clue as to what the verfremdungseffekt is? Hell, even a play like Equus would be nice as long as it challenged the norm.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/4/06 at 11:22am

"Hell, even a play like Equus would be nice as long as it challenged the norm."

Have you seen Well? Who is your audience? It sounds like you forget that many many many many theatregoers do not attend strictly to be artistically challenged or enlightened. They go to be entertained. Especially when they are paying $100+ for Broadway, which is a commercial business. Your idealism is admirable, but not very realistic.

"The audience of American theatre is dying quickly."

People have been saying this for nearly 100 years. Where is your justification to back up that statement? If that were true, there would be a sharp decline in ticket sales and theatrical productions, which there isn't. It sounds like the audience for shows you want produced is dying quickly, which is not exactly true. They are just attending more Off-Broadway productions rather than Broadway. Regionally, there is a lot of new and challenging work as well. Theatre is theatre, be it The Lion King or Endgame or Riverdance. And Broadway itself was born from shows designed strictly for entertainment and escapism, not for artistic challenge.

"Also consider the fact that so much funding comes from individuals who donate money to the arts."

Yes, much funding for non-profit companies comes from individual contributions and many of them are elderly. But far more comes from corporate sponsorship, not from individuals. This is 10 years' experience in both marketing and development in major non-profit arts organizations talking. Not to mention the fact that board members, who also make considerable contributions, are usually considerably younger than the retirement age.

"Who even has a clue as to what the verfremdungseffekt is?"

Unless you're a theatre student, why would they know? I'm willing to bet that the majority of audience members who first viewed Threepenny Opera or Mother Courage and Her Children in the US didn't know the meaning of the word either. It's not like the programs come with textbooks. People who want to know more will research it themselves. And some people do.

Posted: 4/4/06 at 1:41pm

Mainstream is a relative term. As society changes, what is deemed mainstream develops as well. Furthermore, what is mainstream to one person, may be alternative to another. Why judge?

As for people asking, "What should I see?"... I also think they should be encouraged! Watching a brief clip online does not compare to the full theater experience. People are allowed to ask for opinions on shows. Because of many posters' reviews and feedback, I've avoided certain shows and seen others. For example, by watching the clips of Jersey Boys (before I saw it) I was not interested. After reading the rave reviews and feedback, I decided to give it a try and loved it.

The beauty of theater is that there is something for everyone. I get so frustrated when I read snobby posts and people believe that they are superior to others because of the depth of their theater knowledge. If anything, that attitude turns people off to exploring theater and this website. It saddens me that posters have to justify themselves when making a post.....

The beauty of this website is that people can exchange ideas and thoughts about a shared interest, theater. Be tolerant that not everyone lives in NYC; not everyone has the opportunity to be exposed to older shows and a variety of show genres. However, this forum allows people to be exposed to so much more, and for that, I'm thankful.

[Magdalene]

Posted: 4/4/06 at 2:01pm

I've asked for help on occasion, )only because I was trying to cram as much as possible into my NYC trip)---those posters that live in NYC would know which shows have matinees on off days, etc. I would hope that we as a group don't get so bored/blase that we couldn't or wouldn't offer an informed opinion to someone who is sincerely looking for advice.

[rickydrummer]

Posted: 4/5/06 at 6:52pm

I'm another 18-year-old with a similar opinion, but I can sort of understand what out-of-towners are worried about. If you can only get into New York City once a year or less, you probably don't want to take your chances on a show that's not a proven success. I used to feel the same way (hence, seeing "Wicked" a few times, etc.) Now that I'm at NYU and I'm able to see whatever I can afford, I've been able to broaden my horizons, but I understand where not everyone can do that. I don't expect someone from out of town to necessarily experiment as much as someone who's confined to going to theatre a few times a year. If I didn't live in the city now, I probably wouldn't have taken my chances on shows like "Bernarda Alba," "Red Light Winter," or even "The Threepenny Opera." So, I guess my point is that everyone should move to New York City.

[PoisonedRose]

Posted: 4/5/06 at 7:00pm

if someone posts a 'what should i see?' thread, you should either

a- ignore it

or

b- help that person find a show they might not otherwise think to see. you can't complain about all the good, non-commercial shows failing when you won't even try to introduce them to other people. theatre snobs are by nature an esoteric group, but that does not entitle us to be rude. when a tourist goes to buy show tickets, the list of choices is long and confusing. why is it wrong for an outsider to ask for a bit of explanation?

[wickedkiwi]

Posted: 4/5/06 at 7:41pm

as a recent poster of a "what should i see" er...post, i am going to take the opportunity to defend myself with the following:

yea. it sucks. going to see shows is sooo expensive, particularly if oyu dont live in the area and have to fly from far away and pay hotels and etc. i'm usually all for experimenting, to be honest, but i really really REALLY don't want to be dragged into a bad show i have to walk out of. and then i dont want to sit there and be miserable cause i can't walk out of a $100 dollar show.

hence the what should i see post. case in point, i was standing in line after being convinced by advertisments that little women was the show to see (dear God), and a woman walked up to me and suggested i see dirty rotten scoundrels instead. i continue pray for the woman who saved me on that fateful day...

but i ramble. i agree with the previous posting. PLEASE: recommend something good. recommend something i haven't seen. just don't tell me i HAVE to see wicked/spamalot/producers/thelionking, cause i get enough of that from trick publicity campaigns.

[LorelaiGilmore]

Posted: 4/5/06 at 9:38pm

I think there are two different sides to this. One is if your just going by yourself and just want to know something to see, I find that a bit stupid. But if you're going with kids where the number of shows would be restricted due to content, I think it's ok, because every kid is at a different maturity level, and if you really don't know anything about a show, then you probably should not just go into it without knowing anything.

Oh, and sorry for this rant that may not make sense, I am half watching Veronica Mars right now.