Help in NYC
jules
and only one show. I want to see a musical, but can't decide. What
one should I see? I am thinking either "Urinetowm" or "The Full
Monty", but I'm not sure. HELP!! I can only see one-Jules
ATKokmen
If those are the only two musicals you're interested in, your choice
may have gotten much easier; unless I'm mistaken, "The Full
Monty" has closed on Broadway.
ATK
_______
"There is only one requirement for any of us, and that is to be
courageous...And I believe, because I've done a little of this myself,
pretending to be courageous is just as good as the real thing."
--David Letterman, 17 September 2001
Jesse Jones
> I'm going to New York for Christmas. I have enough money to see one,
> and only one show. I want to see a musical, but can't decide. What
> Monty", but I'm not sure. HELP!! I can only see one-Jules
The Full Monty has closed (you missed a great show!). Your choice
depends on your taste. Urinetown of course won Tony Awards for Best
Book and Best Score. I have tickets to see it in January and am looking
forward to it.
BTC/TAK on ACK
closed... but URINETOWN is a terrific show. I liked it so much that I wound
up seeing it twice during my recent visit to NYC.
Mila
"jules" <julian...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:78273482.02111...@posting.google.com...
Noel Katz
but Metamorphoses,
while not a musical,
is the experience of a lifetime.
And, given the difficulties involved in producing the two shows, it's much more
likely you'll be able to catch Urinetown later
http://hometown.aol.com/noelkatz/main.html
Paul Tauger
Monty is closed, unless I'm mistaken).
I LOVED Urinetown -- it was lots of fun, I like the music, and the cast was
extraordinary.
I thought Full Monty was the worst show I'd ever seen, anywhere in the
world, at any time.
"jules" <julian...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:78273482.02111...@posting.google.com...
Matthew A. Murray
news:arcagg$gv9l3$1...@ID-101118.news.dfncis.de...
> For what it's worth, I saw Full Monty and Urinetown the same day (and Full
> Monty is closed, unless I'm mistaken).
>
> I LOVED Urinetown -- it was lots of fun, I like the music, and the cast
was
> extraordinary.
I've seen shows I liked much better than Urinetown on and off
Broadway, each of the last three seasons I've attended shows with great
regularity. Urinetown bores me quite a bit, really, but a number of people
do like it quite a bit, and it's still open, so...
> I thought Full Monty was the worst show I'd ever seen, anywhere in the
> world, at any time.
Ah, so you missed Martin Guerre and Aida. Congratulations.
Some of us weren't so lucky.
----------------------------
Matthew A. Murray
matthe...@mindspring.com
http://www.matthewmurray.net
----------------------------
Theat...@webtv.net
2nd time......it's terrific.
Paul Tauger
> "Paul Tauger" <ptauger...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:arcagg$gv9l3$1...@ID-101118.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > For what it's worth, I saw Full Monty and Urinetown the same day (and Full
> > Monty is closed, unless I'm mistaken).
> >
> > I LOVED Urinetown -- it was lots of fun, I like the music, and the cast
> was
> > extraordinary.
>
> I've seen shows I liked much better than Urinetown on and off
> Broadway, each of the last three seasons I've attended shows with great
> regularity.
I only get to New York two or three times a year. I'd appreciate any
recommendations, as I've been, for the most part, disappointed with
the offerings when I go.
> Urinetown bores me quite a bit, really, but a number of people
> do like it quite a bit, and it's still open, so...
>
> > I thought Full Monty was the worst show I'd ever seen, anywhere in the
> > world, at any time.
>
> Ah, so you missed Martin Guerre and Aida. Congratulations.
> Some of us weren't so lucky.
I have one of the Martin Guerre CDs (I don't remember which one it
is). It's not one of the most-listened-to in my collection. As for
Aida, I have no interest in anything Disney. In fact, that's not a
strong enough statement -- I despise the influence Disney has had on
musical theater.
Just for the sake of conversation, I've been trying to think which was
the SECOND worst musical I've ever seen. I'm almost certain that that
distinction would have to go to TIME, a terrible piece I saw in London
in the early 80s, I think. It featured Laurence Olivier -- on film!
Ian F.
> Ah, so you missed Martin Guerre and Aida. Congratulations.
> Some of us weren't so lucky.
And we Londoners had to suffer ASPECTS OF LOVE and HUNTING OF THE SNARK!
Ian
Stephen Farrow
Neither of which were as bad as "Bernadette", "Matador", "King",
"Valentine's Day", "Which Witch?", "Leonardo", "Out of the Blue"...
(No, I'm NOT saying "Hunting of the Snark" was good - it stank on almost
every level - but it was more enjoyable than any of the above)
Stephen
>
> Ian
--
"First of all, you're going to need a live chicken and a working
knowledge of Latin..."
Stephen Farrow
> I despise the influence Disney has had on
> musical theater.
Not that I'm a cheerleader for any of their stage musicals - I'm not, AT
ALL - but what influence would that be? The historical evidence suggests
that the Broadway musical arrived at its current (woeful) economic state
without any help from the Disney organisation. Disney didn't create the
current safe-as-houses roster of musicals - they just arrived on the
scene in the middle of an economic shift, and had deep enough pockets to
be able to spend more on marketing than their competitors.
Stephen
Paul Tauger
"Stephen Farrow" <sfa...@chass.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:3DDB3C28...@chass.utoronto.ca...
> Paul Tauger wrote:
> > I despise the influence Disney has had on
> > musical theater.
>
> Not that I'm a cheerleader for any of their stage musicals - I'm not, AT
> ALL - but what influence would that be?
Disney has conditioned a huge potential audience that musical theater is
cartoonish family-friendly pop-music spectacle.
Stephen Farrow
>
> "Stephen Farrow" <sfa...@chass.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
> news:3DDB3C28...@chass.utoronto.ca...
> > Paul Tauger wrote:
> > > I despise the influence Disney has had on
> > > musical theater.
> >
> > Not that I'm a cheerleader for any of their stage musicals - I'm not, AT
> > ALL - but what influence would that be?
>
> Disney has conditioned a huge potential audience that musical theater is
> cartoonish family-friendly pop-music spectacle.
How, exactly, has *The Disney Organisation* done this? They're far from
the only producers of musical theatre, and they're far from the only
people mounting safe, family-friendly pop-music spectacle.
Citations, please.
Paul Tauger
> Paul Tauger wrote:
> >
> > "Stephen Farrow" <sfa...@chass.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3DDB3C28...@chass.utoronto.ca...
> > > Paul Tauger wrote:
> > > > I despise the influence Disney has had on
> > > > musical theater.
> > >
> > > Not that I'm a cheerleader for any of their stage musicals - I'm not,
AT
> > > ALL - but what influence would that be?
> >
> > Disney has conditioned a huge potential audience that musical theater is
> > cartoonish family-friendly pop-music spectacle.
>
> How, exactly, has *The Disney Organisation* done this? They're far from
> the only producers of musical theatre, and they're far from the only
> people mounting safe, family-friendly pop-music spectacle.
>
> Citations, please.
>
> Stephen
This is casual conversation. I don't provide citations.
Obviously, Disney isn't the only producer of stage tripe. However, Disney
carries a cachet for many Americans gives it the power to inform public
opinion to an extent for greater than any other producing entity on
Broadway. People will go see Beauty and the Beast or the Lion King on
Broadway because they've been exposed to the films and know the Disney name
(and they'll certainly see these before they see something named, for
example, "Urinetown"). Once exposed to this particular treacle, they'll
think they've seen a "Broadway show," and their expectations will be
adjusted accordingly; anything that doesn't "rise" to that production level
will be deemed "not a good Broadway show."
That's my opinion. Disney conditions potential theater-goers to expect, and
even prefer, dreck. This doesn't mean that other producers aren't mounting
garbage of equal or greater proportion. However, unlike Disney, they lack
the reach to warp expectations and tastes to such a degree.
Stephen Farrow
>
> "Stephen Farrow" <sfa...@chass.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
> news:3DDC09D9...@chass.utoronto.ca...
> > Paul Tauger wrote:
> > >
> > > "Stephen Farrow" <sfa...@chass.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:3DDB3C28...@chass.utoronto.ca...
> > > > Paul Tauger wrote:
> > > > > I despise the influence Disney has had on
> > > > > musical theater.
> > > >
> > > > Not that I'm a cheerleader for any of their stage musicals - I'm not,
> AT
> > > > ALL - but what influence would that be?
> > >
> > > Disney has conditioned a huge potential audience that musical theater is
> > > cartoonish family-friendly pop-music spectacle.
> >
> > How, exactly, has *The Disney Organisation* done this? They're far from
> > the only producers of musical theatre, and they're far from the only
> > people mounting safe, family-friendly pop-music spectacle.
> >
> > Citations, please.
> >
> > Stephen
>
> This is casual conversation. I don't provide citations.
Not good enough. If you make an assertion, you need to provide evidence
to back it up.
>
> Obviously, Disney isn't the only producer of stage tripe. However, Disney
> carries a cachet for many Americans gives it the power to inform public
> opinion to an extent for greater than any other producing entity on
> Broadway. People will go see Beauty and the Beast or the Lion King on
> Broadway because they've been exposed to the films and know the Disney name
> (and they'll certainly see these before they see something named, for
> example, "Urinetown"). Once exposed to this particular treacle, they'll
> think they've seen a "Broadway show," and their expectations will be
> adjusted accordingly; anything that doesn't "rise" to that production level
> will be deemed "not a good Broadway show."
>
> That's my opinion. Disney conditions potential theater-goers to expect, and
> even prefer, dreck. This doesn't mean that other producers aren't mounting
> garbage of equal or greater proportion. However, unlike Disney, they lack
> the reach to warp expectations and tastes to such a degree.
You wouldn't think that the immense marketing campaigns mounted for
"Cats" and "Phantom" - both of which were as large as if not larger than
any of the marketing campaigns for Disney's three stage productions -
were far more responsible for this phenomenon?
As far as stage musicals are concerned, Disney didn't create the
bandwagon. They jumped on it.
Stephen
Ian F.
> Neither of which were as bad as "Bernadette", "Matador", "King",
> "Valentine's Day", "Which Witch?", "Leonardo", "Out of the Blue"...
I managed to avoid all those, but I'll take your word for it. ;-)
> (No, I'm NOT saying "Hunting of the Snark" was good - it stank on almost
> every level - but it was more enjoyable than any of the above)
Kenny Everett was OK[1].
Ian
[1] No, he wasn't. ;-)
Stephen Farrow
Right. He REALLY wasn't (though he also had the worst number).
I particularly enjoyed how several of the reviews picked up on the fact
that the Act One finale was called "Dancing Towards Disaster" (I saw it
in late previews).
Stephen
Jesse Jones
>As far as stage musicals are concerned, Disney didn't create the
>bandwagon. They jumped on it.
>
>
I think that is a fair assessment. But they had the resources and
experience to hijack that wagon and take musical theatre to places it
has no business going.
sarah thiboutot
<jesse...@mindspring.com> wrote:
And frankly, they turned Times Square into a theme park. Not that the old
Times Square wasn't in need of help, but I doubt this was what they had in
mind when redevelopment was proposed.
Paul Tauger
Or what? This is internet, not Introduction to Theater 101, or the United
States District Court. I've given my opinion. Feel free to reject it.
> >
> > Obviously, Disney isn't the only producer of stage tripe. However,
Disney
> > carries a cachet for many Americans gives it the power to inform public
> > opinion to an extent for greater than any other producing entity on
> > Broadway. People will go see Beauty and the Beast or the Lion King on
> > Broadway because they've been exposed to the films and know the Disney
name
> > (and they'll certainly see these before they see something named, for
> > example, "Urinetown"). Once exposed to this particular treacle, they'll
> > think they've seen a "Broadway show," and their expectations will be
> > adjusted accordingly; anything that doesn't "rise" to that production
level
> > will be deemed "not a good Broadway show."
> >
> > That's my opinion. Disney conditions potential theater-goers to expect,
and
> > even prefer, dreck. This doesn't mean that other producers aren't
mounting
> > garbage of equal or greater proportion. However, unlike Disney, they
lack
> > the reach to warp expectations and tastes to such a degree.
>
> You wouldn't think that the immense marketing campaigns mounted for
> "Cats" and "Phantom" - both of which were as large as if not larger than
> any of the marketing campaigns for Disney's three stage productions -
> were far more responsible for this phenomenon?
Honestly? No, for a couple of reasons. I'm not an ALW fan by any stretch
of the imagination, but I wouldn't put Phantom into the same class as Beauty
and the Beast (Cats is another story, David Beame notwithstanding). And
neither Phantom nor Cats was promoted as a "live version" of, or adjunct to,
an animated film/ancillary product merchandising line. However, I'd be
willing to bet that there are far, far more people familiar with Disney's
fare than with Phantom and Cats put together. And, no, I don't have a
citation for that. However, there's not a friend of mine's kid who can't
sing their way through the entire Disney corpus, whereas I don't hear many
of them humming "Music of the Night."
>
> As far as stage musicals are concerned, Disney didn't create the
> bandwagon. They jumped on it.
As I said, Disney isn't the only producer of dreck, nor did it invent the
genre. However, it has tried to turn Broadway (both the institution and the
physical location) into some sort of Disneyland annex -- "Theaterland" --
filled with insipid, family-themed pablum, a clever simulation of theater,
but definitely not the real thing. And, thanks to the Disney marketing
machine, for many, many people one-dimensional cartoonish diversions are
synonymous with musical theater.
No cites. Just my opinion.
Tim Gowen
<ian...@globalnet.dotcodotuk> writes
>HUNTING OF THE SNARK!
I didn't see it, but got the concept album and I think it sounded like a
good, fun show. I think the critics just decided to round on it: bad it
may have been, but it's achieved legendary badness and I'm sure that's
not fair.
Tim
--
Tim Gowen
The RATM FAQ: http://www.juglans.demon.co.uk/Tim/Theatre/TheatreLinks.htm
Stephen Farrow
Or you look like an idiot. If you make an assertion, it's incumbent on
you to back it up, here as everywhere else.
Do you know how much "Phantom" has grossed worldwide? There are very,
very few entertainment products out there with greater brand familiarity
(hint: it's taken in more money at the box office than "ET").
> However, there's not a friend of mine's kid who can't
> sing their way through the entire Disney corpus, whereas I don't hear many
> of them humming "Music of the Night."
>
> >
> > As far as stage musicals are concerned, Disney didn't create the
> > bandwagon. They jumped on it.
>
> As I said, Disney isn't the only producer of dreck, nor did it invent the
> genre. However, it has tried to turn Broadway (both the institution and the
> physical location) into some sort of Disneyland annex -- "Theaterland" --
> filled with insipid, family-themed pablum, a clever simulation of theater,
> but definitely not the real thing. And, thanks to the Disney marketing
> machine, for many, many people one-dimensional cartoonish diversions are
> synonymous with musical theater.
>
> No cites. Just my opinion.
All well and good, but you still haven't explained how an organisation
that has produced *three* stage musicals has had such a detrimental
influence on the musical theatre form (as opposed to Times Square
itself).
Stephen Farrow
Aside from hiring Julie Taymor to direct "The Lion King" (their one
really, REALLY smart move), where exactly has the Disney organisation
(or Hyperion Theatricals, the subsidiary that produced "Aida") taken
musical theatre that it hadn't already been because of Cameron
Mackintosh?
Paul Tauger
Oh, I don't think I'm the one that looks like an idiot on this particular
point.
Gross box office isn't an accurate measure, as theater tickets cost quite a
few multiples of movie tickets. However, I'd wager that far more people
have seen the Disney cartoons than have seen Phantom. BATB and Lion King
weren't intended by Disney to be theater, per se, but as merchandising
opportunities ancillary to the cartoons, just like the DVDs, lunch boxes,
pajamas, and whatever other paraphenalia that Disney has marketed. (Though
as for Aida, god only knows what that was supposed to be -- I'm not sure
even Disney knows.)
>
> > However, there's not a friend of mine's kid who can't
> > sing their way through the entire Disney corpus, whereas I don't hear
many
> > of them humming "Music of the Night."
> >
> > >
> > > As far as stage musicals are concerned, Disney didn't create the
> > > bandwagon. They jumped on it.
> >
> > As I said, Disney isn't the only producer of dreck, nor did it invent
the
> > genre. However, it has tried to turn Broadway (both the institution and
the
> > physical location) into some sort of Disneyland annex --
"Theaterland" --
> > filled with insipid, family-themed pablum, a clever simulation of
theater,
> > but definitely not the real thing. And, thanks to the Disney marketing
> > machine, for many, many people one-dimensional cartoonish diversions are
> > synonymous with musical theater.
> >
> > No cites. Just my opinion.
>
> All well and good, but you still haven't explained how an organisation
> that has produced *three* stage musicals has had such a detrimental
> influence on the musical theatre form (as opposed to Times Square
> itself).
I've explained it very clearly. Wait . . . I'll find it. Here it is, from
a few quotes back:
"Disney conditions potential theater-goers to expect, and
even prefer, dreck."
and
"[Disney] has tried to turn Broadway (both the institution and the physical
location) into some sort of Disneyland annex -- "Theaterland" -- filled with
insipid, family-themed pablum, a clever simulation of theater, but
definitely not the real thing. And, thanks to the Disney marketing machine,
for many, many people one-dimensional cartoonish diversions are synonymous
with musical theater."
Times Square used to be the home Broadway theaters*, movie theaters showing
porn, Nathans, hookers, the Latin Quarter and the Dick Cavett Show.
Now it is the home to office buildings (some with Broadway theaters),
Broadway theaters, movie theaters showing the latest Disney flick,
McDonalds, and twelve hundred t-shirt shops. At least Colony is still
there.
I honestly liked the old Times Square better.
*And lest you take me too literally, I'm aware that the Wintergarden is the
only theater in the Times Square area that is, literally, on Broadway.
Stephen Farrow
> > Do you know how much "Phantom" has grossed worldwide? There are very,
> > very few entertainment products out there with greater brand familiarity
> > (hint: it's taken in more money at the box office than "ET").
>
> Gross box office isn't an accurate measure, as theater tickets cost quite a
> few multiples of movie tickets. However, I'd wager that far more people
> have seen the Disney cartoons than have seen Phantom. BATB and Lion King
> weren't intended by Disney to be theater, per se, but as merchandising
> opportunities ancillary to the cartoons, just like the DVDs, lunch boxes,
> pajamas, and whatever other paraphenalia that Disney has marketed. (Though
> as for Aida, god only knows what that was supposed to be -- I'm not sure
> even Disney knows.)
Ever seen the merchandising stands at Cameron Mackintosh shows? Again,
Disney didn't invent the concept - they jumped on someone else's
bandwagon.
As for the Disney cartoons - we're talking about *theatre* as an
entertainment product. And yes, the Disney musicals are hugely exploited
for their marketing potential - but no more than "Phantom", "Cats" or
"Les Mis".
Regarding "The Lion King" - I think they did make a serious and sincere
attempt to do something theatrically interesting with the piece (if I
was looking to produce a theme-park attraction, Julie Taymor - at least,
Julie Taymor with the resume she had in 1995 - would be absolutely the
last person I'd hire). Too bad they stopped short of getting a decent
text written, but it *was* a step in the right direction. The point is,
if *all* they'd really wanted a theme-park show with a marketing
campaign attached, they'd have gone with the same team that did "Beauty
and the Beast".
That's a statement of opinion, not an explanation.
>
> and
>
> "[Disney] has tried to turn Broadway (both the institution and the physical
> location) into some sort of Disneyland annex -- "Theaterland" -- filled with
> insipid, family-themed pablum, a clever simulation of theater, but
> definitely not the real thing. And, thanks to the Disney marketing machine,
> for many, many people one-dimensional cartoonish diversions are synonymous
> with musical theater."
We've already covered this, and you still haven't answered my question.
What, exactly, has Disney done that hadn't already been done by Cameron
Mackintosh?
>
> Times Square used to be the home Broadway theaters*, movie theaters showing
> porn, Nathans, hookers, the Latin Quarter and the Dick Cavett Show.
>
> Now it is the home to office buildings (some with Broadway theaters),
> Broadway theaters, movie theaters showing the latest Disney flick,
> McDonalds, and twelve hundred t-shirt shops. At least Colony is still
> there.
Disney is hardly the only big, glossy corporation to move aggressively
into the Times Square area - and they weren't the first. And, given
Giuliani's well-publicised crackdown on the sleazier side of Times
Square, it's arguable (indeed, more or less certain) that that
transformation would have happened anyway without Disney's help. Disney,
don't forget, was not the only corporate entity buying theatres in the
Times Square area in the 1990s (though, granted, the other organisation
that did so is now bankrupt).
And none of this, anyway, speaks to Disney's having had any impact on
the stage musical as an *art form*.
Start looking at the facts, rather than just your own opinions. The
reason that safe, middle-of-the-road, easily-marketable fare dominates
Broadway these days is the immense cost of launching and marketing a new
Broadway musical (it's always been expensive, but costs have risen way,
way faster than inflation). It's not because Disney's marketing
executives willed it so - it's the result of a set of economic
circumstances that can be traced back at least as far as the late 1970s.
Noel Katz
I mourn this metamorphosis, too, but what percentage of that big block of 42nd
Street is owned by Disney? They have the New Amsterdam (hardly a theme park,
that) and what else?
http://hometown.aol.com/noelkatz/main.html
Jesse Jones
>Jesse Jones wrote:
>
>
>>Stephen Farrow wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>As far as stage musicals are concerned, Disney didn't create the
>>>bandwagon. They jumped on it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I think that is a fair assessment. But they had the resources and
>>experience to hijack that wagon and take musical theatre to places it
>>has no business going.
>>
>>
>
>Aside from hiring Julie Taymor to direct "The Lion King" (their one
>really, REALLY smart move), where exactly has the Disney organisation
>(or Hyperion Theatricals, the subsidiary that produced "Aida") taken
>musical theatre that it hadn't already been because of Cameron
>Mackintosh?
>
>
>
Well, to be fair, I've only seen one of their musicals, Beauty & the
Beast, and I am embarrassed to have to admit to that. On the other
hand, I am a parent who reared two children in Florida, and so my
exposure to Disney is extensive. I don't want to see any more of their
musicals.
The idea of spending a fortune for a spectacular production and
promotion offends me. It may be entertainment, but it is not art. I
don't have figures to compare what Disney has done to what Mackintosh
has done.
Any production to reach any audience requires collaboration between
the suites and creative folk. But with Disney it seems to me the
balance is way off.
Paul Tauger
> Paul Tauger wrote:
> >
> > "Stephen Farrow" <sfa...@chass.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3DDD48F6...@chass.utoronto.ca...
>
> > > Do you know how much "Phantom" has grossed worldwide? There are very,
> > > very few entertainment products out there with greater brand
familiarity
> > > (hint: it's taken in more money at the box office than "ET").
> >
> > Gross box office isn't an accurate measure, as theater tickets cost
quite a
> > few multiples of movie tickets. However, I'd wager that far more people
> > have seen the Disney cartoons than have seen Phantom. BATB and Lion
King
> > weren't intended by Disney to be theater, per se, but as merchandising
> > opportunities ancillary to the cartoons, just like the DVDs, lunch
boxes,
> > pajamas, and whatever other paraphenalia that Disney has marketed.
(Though
> > as for Aida, god only knows what that was supposed to be -- I'm not sure
> > even Disney knows.)
>
> Ever seen the merchandising stands at Cameron Mackintosh shows? Again,
> Disney didn't invent the concept - they jumped on someone else's
> bandwagon.
Of course. There are a number of differences, though. A souvenir stand at
a show sells souvenirs . . . of that show (and, of course, the stands are
located in the theater). Ever been to Walmart? That's Disney's souvenir
stand (along with Disney _stores_ -- isn't there one of these in Times
Square now?). And Disney isn't merchandising it's _show_ -- it's
merchandising a "product" called, for example, "Beauty and the Beast," which
is the cartoon, the show, the underwear, what have you.
>
> As for the Disney cartoons - we're talking about *theatre* as an
> entertainment product.
Exactly. And I, for one, am not entertained by Disney's conception of
musical theater. That would be fine, as long as Disney didn't attempt to
shape the demand for the entire art form with its plastic, packaged stage
productions. By conditioning audiences to expect this junk, audiences will
eschew anything else, unless it's pretty, cardboard, G-rated junk.
"Disneyfication" is a very bad thing -- have you been to Las Vegas lately?
> And yes, the Disney musicals are hugely exploited
> for their marketing potential - but no more than "Phantom", "Cats" or
> "Les Mis".
Disney musicals are part of the exploitation of "lines" of Disney product.
Of course Les Miz is exploited -- ancillary rights are valuable. However
Boubil and Shoenberg (or however its spelled) didn't sit down with focus
groups, come up with a design for Eponine, and then design a marketing
campaign of a line of products that included Saturday morning cartoon shows,
"Victor Hugo on Ice," the Les Miz cartoon, barricade action figures, comic
books, and god knows what else. They decided to tell Victor Hugo's story
through music and lyrics, found that people liked what they did, and sold a
few t-shirts and coffee mugs to audience members who wanted a remembrance of
the performance. One is cynical marketing by committee, the other is
artists taking advantage of their success.
>
> Regarding "The Lion King" - I think they did make a serious and sincere
> attempt to do something theatrically interesting with the piece (if I
> was looking to produce a theme-park attraction, Julie Taymor - at least,
> Julie Taymor with the resume she had in 1995 - would be absolutely the
> last person I'd hire). Too bad they stopped short of getting a decent
> text written, but it *was* a step in the right direction.
Sure, in terms of relative validity, I suppose I'd agree. It's even
conceivable that, if they do enough of these, some day they'll come up with
something artistically meritorious. However, that begs the question, since
my objection is not that they produce dreck, but that they condition
audiences to expect, and even prefer it.
>The point is,
> if *all* they'd really wanted a theme-park show with a marketing
> campaign attached, they'd have gone with the same team that did "Beauty
> and the Beast".
You have more faith in Disney than I do.
And that's a distinction without a difference. As I've indicated, all I
have to offer is my opinion.
> >
> > and
> >
> > "[Disney] has tried to turn Broadway (both the institution and the
physical
> > location) into some sort of Disneyland annex -- "Theaterland" -- filled
with
> > insipid, family-themed pablum, a clever simulation of theater, but
> > definitely not the real thing. And, thanks to the Disney marketing
machine,
> > for many, many people one-dimensional cartoonish diversions are
synonymous
> > with musical theater."
>
> We've already covered this, and you still haven't answered my question.
> What, exactly, has Disney done that hadn't already been done by Cameron
> Mackintosh?
See above re: Walmart and souvenir stands.
Okay, I'll try a different analogy. Are you familiar with the J. Paul Getty
museum in Los Angeles? The museum used to be housed in a Palladian villa in
Malibu, which set off its not-particularly-exciting-but-otherwise-competent
collection very nicely. The museum was a pleasure to visit -- compact, calm
and beautifully situated.
Getty endowed the museum with more money than Microsoft. The museum
directors decided to use some of that endowment to build a huge complex on
top of a mountain in West Los Angeles. There's an automated "people mover"
tram to ferry visitors up and down the mountain from the parking lot.
There's an enormous campus of stark buildings. There's a huge restaurant
and cafeteria. There's a "family center," whatever that is. There's a big,
square pond and acres and acres of concrete.
Now the attraction is no longer the art (they still have essentially the
same collection), but the campus. Families come to see the _museum_, though
not necessarily what is housed within it. Children play frisbee on the
concrete malls. Parents push SUV-sized strollers housing wailing infants
quickly through the galleries. The atmosphere is one of a theme park, and
not a museum.
In my opinion, Disney is trying to do the same thing to Broadway that Getty
did to its art museum. Fortunately for Los Angelenos, there are other,
better museums available, and they are reasonably well-supported. I'm
dreading the day when the only theater available is the Disney theme-park
version.
> >
> > Times Square used to be the home Broadway theaters*, movie theaters
showing
> > porn, Nathans, hookers, the Latin Quarter and the Dick Cavett Show.
> >
> > Now it is the home to office buildings (some with Broadway theaters),
> > Broadway theaters, movie theaters showing the latest Disney flick,
> > McDonalds, and twelve hundred t-shirt shops. At least Colony is still
> > there.
>
> Disney is hardly the only big, glossy corporation to move aggressively
> into the Times Square area - and they weren't the first.
I never said they started this trend. However, they are the worst
perpetrator, at least with respect to Broadway.
>And, given
> Giuliani's well-publicised crackdown on the sleazier side of Times
> Square, it's arguable (indeed, more or less certain) that that
> transformation would have happened anyway without Disney's help.
I'm not so sure about that. It's one thing to roust hookers and
panhandlers. It's another thing altogether to make a
theme-park-ride-on-a-legitimate-stage the focus for and destination of many
New York visitors.
>Disney,
> don't forget, was not the only corporate entity buying theatres in the
> Times Square area in the 1990s (though, granted, the other organisation
> that did so is now bankrupt).
>
> And none of this, anyway, speaks to Disney's having had any impact on
> the stage musical as an *art form*.
We'll see.
>
> Start looking at the facts, rather than just your own opinions. The
> reason that safe, middle-of-the-road, easily-marketable fare dominates
> Broadway these days is the immense cost of launching and marketing a new
> Broadway musical (it's always been expensive, but costs have risen way,
> way faster than inflation).
Disney shows are NOT just safe, middle-of-the-road, easily-marketable fare.
Millie is that. So, I suppose, is Hairspray (haven't seen it yet, so I
don't know for sure). Disney is mass marketing in costume and makeup,
Walmart set to music. Broadway has always walked a line between artistic
expression and marketing appeal. My _opinion_ is that Disney is far on the
wrong side of that line.
Matthew Winn
<ptauger...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Obviously, Disney isn't the only producer of stage tripe. However, Disney
> carries a cachet for many Americans gives it the power to inform public
> opinion to an extent for greater than any other producing entity on
> Broadway. People will go see Beauty and the Beast or the Lion King on
> Broadway because they've been exposed to the films and know the Disney name
> (and they'll certainly see these before they see something named, for
> example, "Urinetown"). Once exposed to this particular treacle, they'll
> think they've seen a "Broadway show," and their expectations will be
> adjusted accordingly; anything that doesn't "rise" to that production level
> will be deemed "not a good Broadway show."
I'm not convinced that's true. They don't go to see a musical that
just happens to be by Disney; they go to see "Walt Disney's Beauty and
the Beast". Their expectations and their decision to see the show are
based on the Disney branding, and they're not automatically going to
assume that another show without the Disney name will be the same sort
of thing. Now if it so happened that the corporation decided to
diversify and opened "Disney's Macbeth" then there would be a whole
load of disappointed families who'd been anticipating the style of
entertainment they've learned to expect from productions linked with
the Disney name, but if the branding isn't there then neither is the
expectation. Disney itself knows that, and those of its various
subdivisions which produce less family-oriented fare tend to keep the
name of the parent corporation hidden away in the credits.
Matthew
Bushwhacker
Paul Tauger wrote:
>
> "Disneyfication" is a very bad thing -- have you been to Las Vegas lately?
>
>
I love this debate because you guys are both making good points. But I
have to leap in here: Are you saying that *Vegas* -- the Schlock Capital
of the World -- has been hurt by Disneynification? If so, how can you tell?
Paul Tauger
"Matthew Winn" <use.reply-...@mwinn.powernet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ne7qtuo67imd64sgc...@4ax.com...
I'd hope you'd be right, but I'm not sure this is the case. The problem is
that film is a lot more ubiquitous than theater. Film audiences can
discriminate between Disney and non-Disney movies, and even between animated
films produced by Disney and those of other studios. Far too many people,
though, have no experience of theater (or, at least, not of the professional
stage). They choose to see a "Broadway show," (or a regional or touring
company production) because they know the Disney name (and are familiar with
all the ancillary marketing hype). They see BATB or Lion King and think,
"Aha, so that's musical theater!" If they've liked it, they'll want to see
more of the same. If they haven't, their not likely to buy a ticket to
another show. Either way, it's bad for other shows.
Paul Tauger
"Bushwhacker" <ro...@thetop.org> wrote in message
news:3DDD6D15...@thetop.org...
The hookers have mouse ears?
Seriously, I remember a time when Vegas wasn't the Schlock Capital of the
World. It was a very adult place -- casinos, show rooms featuring
half-naked women, comics doing "unrestrained" routines, the original Brat
Pack, free drinks and lots of cheap food. You'd never see children there.
The city felt just a little dangerous, a bit salacious, and not an Elvis
impersonator could be found. I used to play blackjack at the original MGM
Grand (the one that burned down in the early 80s), smoking cigarettes,
sipping a bourbon, and pretending I was Bond -- James Bond. I'm telling
you, that place was fun!
Now, the place is one big theme park. Sure, there's still gambling, but now
you have to dodge the strollers in the casinos, every hotel is a themed
"attraction," there are video arcades, ice cream shops, shopping "streets,"
t-shirt shops -- if it weren't for the occasional drunk puking up his
1-gallon margherita which he drank from an Eiffel Tower-shaped plastic
glass, you'd think you _were_ in Disneyland.
Of course Vegas now has "Super Sized" shows (which is where they belong, in
my opinion). I will admit, I'm a sucker for Cirque du Soleil, and it's hard
to imagine another venue that could mount "O" or Mystere. I even liked
Seigfried and Roy's show. However, I'm just as appalled at what a
Vegas-sized Starlight Express does to audience expectations as I am about
Disney.
Anyway, back to your point about whether Vegas is hurt by Disneyfication.
Vegas has already answered that question in the affirmative -- "family
focus" isn't working. Yes, it attracts a lot more people looking for a
"family vacation", but they don't eat in the fancier restaurants, want only
to stay in hotels offering rock-bottom discounts and, above all, they don't
gamble. Vegas is starting to shift away from the family-friendly
aethetic -- most of the more upscale hotels have converted their video
arcardes and ice cream shops (or "shoppes") to bars and lounges featuring
"adult shows" (scantily-clad girls, "parties" that focus on alcoholic
beverages, nothing terribly blue, but clearly unsuitable for "children of
all ages," nonetheless). The newest hotels are aiming at a distinctly
upscale clientele -- the Venetian has an art museum featuring Impressionist
art, the Bellagio used to display Steve Wynn's personal art collection (that
stopped when it was sold to the folks who run the new MGM Grand), rack rate
is around $250/night on the weekends, etc.
Another 10 years or so, and Las Vegas may actually be fun to visit again.
Incidently, Disneyfication isn't unique to the U.S. The first time I
visited Montemarte in Paris (this was a long, long time ago), there was a
charming area behind Sacre Coeur which had, among other things, a Bohemian
square populated by students, artists (real artists, painting real
paintings), quaint cafes, etc. My wife and I were there a couple of years
ago and damn if it hadn't become Disneyfied -- gone were the real painters,
replaced by "caricature" artists who will do a dismal portrait for $10 US.
Instead of students, there were people painted to look like statues who
posed motionless until you gave them $1 to move. And t-shirt shops! Dozens
of them. That portion of Paris had been turned into a tourist nightmare --
a parody of the City of Lights. Thank god, the rest of Paris remains as it
has always been.
>
DarrinT68
>From: julian...@yahoo.com (jules)
>Date: 11/16/02 2:31 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <78273482.02111...@posting.google.com>
>I'm going to New York for Christmas. I have enough money to see one,
>and only one show. I want to see a musical, but can't decide. What
>one should I see? I am thinking either "Urinetowm" or "The Full>Monty", but
I'm not sure. HELP!! I can only see one-Jules>>
Looks above the Gotham skyline.. ...sees SUPERJEW signal.. ehehh Holy CHUTZPA,
GOYMAN!eheh This looks like a job for SUPERJEW!eheh Julianne, no trek to the
hub of the world is ever complete without seeing at least one of the many
sweet-produced shows!eheh With that said, why not see "MOVIN' OUT" by New
York's very own sweet, BILLY JOEL!? eh -D, NYC "I've seen the lights go down on
Broadway..I saw the Empire State laid low.." - BILLY JOEL (New York's very own
sweet Jew, one of the top 100 selling artists of all-time)
Mimi Paragon
Stephen Farrow
Of course I've been to Wal-Mart - the jeans, shirt and sweater I'm
wearing right now came from a Wal-Mart (also toilet paper, kleenex,
batteries, various toiletries, and a couple of kitchen appliances - I
live within a limited budget and they're cheap).
> That's Disney's souvenir
> stand (along with Disney _stores_ -- isn't there one of these in Times
> Square now?). And Disney isn't merchandising it's _show_ -- it's
> merchandising a "product" called, for example, "Beauty and the Beast," which
> is the cartoon, the show, the underwear, what have you.
Yes, granted, but that still has no bearing on whether or not Disney has
conditioned the global musical theatre audience to expect and welcome
dreck.
>
> >
> > As for the Disney cartoons - we're talking about *theatre* as an
> > entertainment product.
>
> Exactly. And I, for one, am not entertained by Disney's conception of
> musical theater.
I wasn't especially entertained by "Beauty and the Beast" onstage either
(on film is another matter - I liked the movie). I found "The Lion King"
to be a breathtaking theatrical experience - but pretty much *only*
because of Julie Taymor (and a couple of the performers). My problem
with "Beauty and the Beast" onstage, actually, wasn't so much with the
material - it's an attractive enough score, though the book hits some
clunkers - as with the staggeringly unimaginative attempt to translate
the cartoon directly to the stage. With "The Lion King", it appears,
they learned their lesson from the brickbats they received the first
time out ("Beauty and the Beast", as writing, is *vastly* more
accomplished than "The Lion King").
As for "Aida" - God only knows what happened there.
> That would be fine, as long as Disney didn't attempt to
> shape the demand for the entire art form with its plastic, packaged stage
> productions. By conditioning audiences to expect this junk, audiences will
> eschew anything else, unless it's pretty, cardboard, G-rated junk.
Again, regarding Broadway musicals, this is a phenomenon that began
before Disney came on the scene in 1994, and it's attributable to
spiralling production costs and high breakevens rather than to one
single corporation with an overactive marketing arm. The cost of
producing new musicals on Broadway has, over the last 25 years, gone
through the roof - it's increased far, far beyond the rate of inflation
(as have ticket prices). I posted some figures a while back comparing
the cost of mounting "Oklahoma!" in 1943 with the cost of mounting "The
Producers" and "Hairspray". Run the costs of those two back through an
inflation calculator, and you'll find that they cost, in 1943 dollars,
roughly ten times what it cost to produce "Oklahoma!". Accordingly,
producers - pretty much *all* producers, not just Disney - play it safe,
producing middle-of-the-road, easily-marketable fare.
At the same time, ticket prices have increased to the degree that the
general audience - as opposed to the sort of 'fan' who'll go and see
everything - has to look for some kind of guarantee of bang-for-the-buck
before making the (major, these days) investment in tickets for a show.
Consider this: on a Saturday night, the top price for orchestra seats
for "The Lion King" in Toronto (here it's a Disney coproduction with the
Mirvish organisation rather than just a Disney show) are C$115. Tickets
for "Mamma Mia" are in a similar range (I think they're a little less -
C$98.75 top). As a comparison, my monthly rent for a one-bedroom
apartment in an OK part of the city 10 minutes' walk from the subway is
C$650 including utilities. A monthly TTC pass is $98 or so. At those
prices, people are just not going to take a chance on seeing something
that might be edgy, that might be hard going, that might not deliver
sufficient bang for the buck. Not because they don't want to, or because
some corporation has hoodwinked them into only wanting to watch huge
great family-oriented spectaculars, but because they *can't*.
And it's a vicious circle. The cost of producing new musicals spirals
upwards. Ticket prices increase. Shows sometimes run for years without
turning a profit (Disney is not immune to this - "Aida" only went into
the black at some point after the first two years of its run on
Broadway). Weekly breakevens are also spiralling upwards. The margins
are relatively small. So producers have a choice - mount work that
exists within a set of increasingly strict conventions (familiar source
material, or a pop songwriter, or some other easily-marketable hook,
with a spectacular physical production) and aim for the
middle-of-the-road audience, or, to put it bluntly, go out of business
(and yes, sure, there are exceptions, but they're few and far between).
Thirty years ago, something like "A Man of No Importance" would probably
have been produced on Broadway. It might not have made any money there,
but the losses a production that size would have incurred would not have
been unsustainable. These days, that kind of thing ends up downstairs at
Lincoln Center, because the numbers just don't work anywhere else.
The point is, Disney didn't *create* this situation in any way, shape or
form. The Broadway musical was already in this state, more or less, by
1990, four years before Disney arrived on the scene. All Disney have
done is use their resources (which, admittedly, are greater than those
of pretty much all other producing organisations) to play the system
they found themselves in when they started producing stage musicals on
Broadway. Today's Broadway musical panders to the middle-of-the-road
because it's simply become too expensive for it do anything else - NOT
because one corporation is brainwashing the market by selling a lot of
souvenirs at Wal-Mart (or the Disney Store - and yes, they *are*
everywhere - there's even one in my hometown in England).
> "Disneyfication" is a very bad thing -- have you been to Las Vegas lately?
I've never been to Las Vegas other than to change planes.
>
> > And yes, the Disney musicals are hugely exploited
> > for their marketing potential - but no more than "Phantom", "Cats" or
> > "Les Mis".
>
> Disney musicals are part of the exploitation of "lines" of Disney product.
> Of course Les Miz is exploited -- ancillary rights are valuable. However
> Boubil and Shoenberg (or however its spelled) didn't sit down with focus
> groups, come up with a design for Eponine, and then design a marketing
> campaign of a line of products that included Saturday morning cartoon shows,
> "Victor Hugo on Ice," the Les Miz cartoon, barricade action figures, comic
> books, and god knows what else. They decided to tell Victor Hugo's story
> through music and lyrics, found that people liked what they did, and sold a
> few t-shirts and coffee mugs to audience members who wanted a remembrance of
> the performance. One is cynical marketing by committee, the other is
> artists taking advantage of their success.
But I'm not so sure that that's entirely what happened with the Disney
shows either (and, as I've said, I'm no particular fan of Disney's stage
musicals, though I was impressed by the staging and design of "The Lion
King"). "Beauty and the Beast" was written - at least, its score was
written - by experienced creators of musical theatre, people with
Broadway aspirations (not to mention a major, critically enjoyed
off-Broadway hit). Come to that, Tim Rice - whatever you think of his
work - is not exactly green. Disney's marketing of those shows, I think,
is simply an example of taking hold of the concept that had already been
established by several global megamusicals and running with it.
As for "Les Mis" - and "Cats", and "Phantom" - Cameron Mackintosh has
said in print in several places that the intention with marketing those
shows was to create a single image for each that would be easily
recogniseable, without any kind of identifying title, or indeed any
words of any kind, anywhere in the world. The marketing phenomena behind
those shows is a great deal more than "artists taking advantage of their
success" - it was *very* carefully, very calculatedly planned, more or
less from the beginning.
>
> >
> > Regarding "The Lion King" - I think they did make a serious and sincere
> > attempt to do something theatrically interesting with the piece (if I
> > was looking to produce a theme-park attraction, Julie Taymor - at least,
> > Julie Taymor with the resume she had in 1995 - would be absolutely the
> > last person I'd hire). Too bad they stopped short of getting a decent
> > text written, but it *was* a step in the right direction.
>
> Sure, in terms of relative validity, I suppose I'd agree. It's even
> conceivable that, if they do enough of these, some day they'll come up with
> something artistically meritorious.
A couple of the things they have in development - "Hoopz", for example -
could actually turn out to be quite interesting.
> However, that begs the question, since
> my objection is not that they produce dreck, but that they condition
> audiences to expect, and even prefer it.
No they don't - they simply came into a market that was already doing
this all by itself.
> Okay, I'll try a different analogy. Are you familiar with the J. Paul Getty
> museum in Los Angeles? The museum used to be housed in a Palladian villa in
> Malibu, which set off its not-particularly-exciting-but-otherwise-competent
> collection very nicely. The museum was a pleasure to visit -- compact, calm
> and beautifully situated.
>
> Getty endowed the museum with more money than Microsoft. The museum
> directors decided to use some of that endowment to build a huge complex on
> top of a mountain in West Los Angeles. There's an automated "people mover"
> tram to ferry visitors up and down the mountain from the parking lot.
> There's an enormous campus of stark buildings. There's a huge restaurant
> and cafeteria. There's a "family center," whatever that is. There's a big,
> square pond and acres and acres of concrete.
>
> Now the attraction is no longer the art (they still have essentially the
> same collection), but the campus. Families come to see the _museum_, though
> not necessarily what is housed within it. Children play frisbee on the
> concrete malls. Parents push SUV-sized strollers housing wailing infants
> quickly through the galleries. The atmosphere is one of a theme park, and
> not a museum.
>
> In my opinion, Disney is trying to do the same thing to Broadway that Getty
> did to its art museum.
As I've already pointed out, Broadway was pretty much already there
without Disney's help (or participation).
> Fortunately for Los Angelenos, there are other,
> better museums available, and they are reasonably well-supported.
Just as, right now, there are regional theaters, nonprofit institutions,
Off-Broadway, Off-Off-Broadway and all the rest of it.
> I'm
> dreading the day when the only theater available is the Disney theme-park
> version.
Broadway - with the odd exception here and there - has pretty much been
there for the last 15 years. Fortunately there's more to theatre than
Broadway.
>
> > >
> > > Times Square used to be the home Broadway theaters*, movie theaters
> showing
> > > porn, Nathans, hookers, the Latin Quarter and the Dick Cavett Show.
> > >
> > > Now it is the home to office buildings (some with Broadway theaters),
> > > Broadway theaters, movie theaters showing the latest Disney flick,
> > > McDonalds, and twelve hundred t-shirt shops. At least Colony is still
> > > there.
> >
> > Disney is hardly the only big, glossy corporation to move aggressively
> > into the Times Square area - and they weren't the first.
>
> I never said they started this trend. However, they are the worst
> perpetrator, at least with respect to Broadway.
Are you absolutely sure of that? They're far from the only major
corporation to have moved into the area, and they're not necessarily
even the most visibly conspicuous.
>
> >And, given
> > Giuliani's well-publicised crackdown on the sleazier side of Times
> > Square, it's arguable (indeed, more or less certain) that that
> > transformation would have happened anyway without Disney's help.
>
> I'm not so sure about that. It's one thing to roust hookers and
> panhandlers. It's another thing altogether to make a
> theme-park-ride-on-a-legitimate-stage the focus for and destination of many
> New York visitors.
Well, yes, but I suspect, given the mythology surrounding Times Square
as a tourist destination, that redevelopers would have moved it in that
direction whether or not Disney had arrived on the scene.
>
> >Disney,
> > don't forget, was not the only corporate entity buying theatres in the
> > Times Square area in the 1990s (though, granted, the other organisation
> > that did so is now bankrupt).
> >
> > And none of this, anyway, speaks to Disney's having had any impact on
> > the stage musical as an *art form*.
>
> We'll see.
>
> >
> > Start looking at the facts, rather than just your own opinions. The
> > reason that safe, middle-of-the-road, easily-marketable fare dominates
> > Broadway these days is the immense cost of launching and marketing a new
> > Broadway musical (it's always been expensive, but costs have risen way,
> > way faster than inflation).
>
> Disney shows are NOT just safe, middle-of-the-road, easily-marketable fare.
Taken purely for their theatrical value, yes they are.
> Millie is that. So, I suppose, is Hairspray (haven't seen it yet, so I
> don't know for sure). Disney is mass marketing in costume and makeup,
> Walmart set to music. Broadway has always walked a line between artistic
> expression and marketing appeal. My _opinion_ is that Disney is far on the
> wrong side of that line.
And the facts and figures show that all they've done is play - quite
successfully - a system that was already established some time ago. You
might not like what they do - I've already said that, a couple of things
aside, I don't much either - but that doesn't mean that they've
"conditioned a huge potential audience that musical theater is
cartoonish family-friendly pop-music spectacle". By the time Disney
arrived on the scene, nearly all *financially successful* musical
theatre - on Broadway, anyway - was already just that anyway, just as
they are now (and musicals aren't failing in any greater proportion now
than they were 10 or 20 years ago). It didn't happen because of any
Disney marketing exercise - it happened because of the horrendous
economics of producing on Broadway. And, as I said before in something
you quoted and I snipped for brevity, Broadway has been inexorably
moving towards its current state since at least the mid-1970s.
Steve Newport
more satisfying than Sondheim's PASSION. It's as likely as any musical
of the last 15 years to become a regional staple that will actually be
enjoyable THERE.
Re: Help in NYC
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Thu, Nov 21, 2002, 5:57pm From:
jesse...@mindspring.com (Jesse Jones) Well, to be fair, I've only
seen one of their musicals, Beauty & the Beast, and I am
embarrassed......
Matthew A. Murray
> the cartoon directly to the stage. With "The Lion King", it appears,
> they learned their lesson from the brickbats they received the first
> time out ("Beauty and the Beast", as writing, is *vastly* more
> accomplished than "The Lion King").
>
> As for "Aida" - God only knows what happened there.
Stephen, somehow I'm guessing even He is pretty confused.
----------------------------
Matthew A. Murray
matthe...@mindspring.com
http://www.matthewmurray.net
----------------------------
Matthew A. Murray
news:29632-3DD...@storefull-2377.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Why? It's easily the best of the Disney stage projects. And certainly
> more satisfying than Sondheim's PASSION. It's as likely as any musical
> of the last 15 years to become a regional staple that will actually be
> enjoyable THERE.
Well... uh... I happened to like Passion when it was in
Washington, D.C. (That's the only time I've ever seen it live.)
But I do agree with you about Beauty and the Beast. Yes, it's a
more or less straightforward adaptation of the film, but I like some of the
songs they added (particularly "Home," and "If I Can't Love Her") and think
that they made some effective changes to the story. It's perhaps
unnecessarily heavy on the spectacle side, but that's okay, because it's a
story about real people and real emotions, something the other two Disney
shows just aren't. The Lion King is about great sets, great costumes, and a
great director, but it's as emotionally vacant as any show I've seen, with a
less effective book than most, and songs that, frankly, are so bad, I can't
even believe they were in the film version.
And as soon as I figure out what the heck Aida is about, I'll
post it here, but I have a sneaking suspicion it isn't really about anything
substantive; I suspect the most that can be said about it is that it
attempts to tell a... <cough> relevant story using good looking 20- and
30-somethings to appeal to people slightly older than 10. (Meaning 11.)
But with a book and score even worse than The Lion King, and a production
concept worse than Beauty and the Beast, I see Aida as the most dangerous of
the Disney shows, actually, because it purports so heavily to be something
it's not. Regardless of peoples' feelings about shows, they at least have
some realistic idea of what to expect from Beauty and the Beast and The Lion
King, even if it's only "seeing the movie onstage." But Aida trying to pass
itself off as a real musical about people (which I find laughable--Beauty
and the Beast comes closer) is very deceptive, I think. It's as overtly
commercial as the other two, if not more so, simply without the automatic
name recognition.
But because it has music by Elton John and a cast of attractive
(mostly) young actors, it will sell because Disney has billions of dollars
to back it up. My problem with Disney is exactly that: They know their
stuff doesn't need to be good... so it's not. It's exactly what will sell,
nothing more, flaunting the conventions of the Broadway theatre they wish to
be a part of. The one truly artistic move Disney has made in its theatrical
endeavors was hiring Julie Taymor to direct The Lion King, and I suspect
that was almost a fluke--just about anything they did with that property
would still be running today. Taymor gave it the tiniest dose of theatre,
which, for Disney, is enough. Producers of original shows or shows with
less built-in name value can't play it as safe as Disney does and be
successful, and I would rather see any single of those shows--however
bad--than have more Disney focus-grouped musicals on Broadway.
Jesse Jones
>to back it up. My problem with Disney is exactly that: They know their
>stuff doesn't need to be good... so it's not. It's exactly what will sell,
>nothing more, flaunting the conventions of the Broadway theatre they wish to
>be a part of. The one truly artistic move Disney has made in its theatrical
>endeavors was hiring Julie Taymor to direct The Lion King, and I suspect
>that was almost a fluke--just about anything they did with that property
>would still be running today. Taymor gave it the tiniest dose of theatre,
>which, for Disney, is enough. Producers of original shows or shows with
>less built-in name value can't play it as safe as Disney does and be
>successful, and I would rather see any single of those shows--however
>bad--than have more Disney focus-grouped musicals on Broadway.
>
>
There's the tension between entertainment and art. Art in my
opinion is at its best when it is dangerous, provocative, daring. And
those don't sell. Disney long before it invaded Broadway mastered the
craft of finding the lowest common denominators in entertainment to sell
the maximum number of tickets.
Loire21
>Art in my
>opinion is at its best when it is dangerous, provocative, daring.
And I think it's best when it's benign, benevolent, pleasing. Like Boucher. Or
The Student Gypsy, or 13 Daughters, or The Happiest Girl in the World.
Matthew A. Murray
news:20021122084239...@mb-bh.aol.com...
And I think it's best when it's honest. Whether that means
being dangerous, provocative, daring, benign, benevolent, pleasing, happy,
sad, indifferent, epic, intimate, or anything else, if a musical knows what
it needs to be and then strives to do that as well as it can
unapologetically, that's what matters to me.
Michael Callery
>
> Or what? This is internet, not Introduction to Theater 101, or the United
> States District Court. I've given my opinion. Feel free to reject it.
Yes, no one will read your posts, people will put you in their filter
files, and you are basically talking to air. You assume that because you
post that people read your post? Really.
This is not a casual conversation. A personal argument is fine as long
as you tell people why not just what you felt. A reasoned argument is
even better where you can bring in scholars or critics or other voices
to either back up or, as odd as this may sound, even disagree with you.
(To which you have a good response.)
This IS Introduction to Musical Theatre 101 and you should know that I
feel sorry for you and for all of the others who think this is a chat room.
Mike
Jonathan E. Rubin
> >
> Aside from hiring Julie Taymor to direct "The Lion King" (their one
> really, REALLY smart move), where exactly has the Disney organisation
> (or Hyperion Theatricals, the subsidiary that produced "Aida") taken
> musical theatre that it hadn't already been because of Cameron
> Mackintosh?
>
> Stephen
Just as a point of information, Hyperion Theatricals had a very short
life, which ended immediately after Aida opened at the Palace. And it
wasn't a subsidiary of the Disney Organization (there is no such
company). To th extent that it was a subsidiary of anything (as the
term is usually construed), it would have been a subsidiary of Buena
Vista Theatrical Productions, which is the parent company of Disney
Theatricals. BVTP, in turn, is in the Disney Animation family
somewhere, and Disney Animation is a subsidiary of the Walt Disney
Company.
In addition to clearing that up, what I've just described is exactly
what's wrong with commercial theater today....much too corporate.
Jonathan E. Rubin
> Or what? This is internet, not Introduction to Theater 101, or the United
> States District Court. I've given my opinion. Feel free to reject it.
You are correct, sir
Bushwhacker
Matthew A. Murray wrote:
> "Steve Newport" <srrne...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:29632-3DD...@storefull-2377.public.lawson.webtv.net...
>
>
>>Why? It's easily the best of the Disney stage projects. And certainly
>>more satisfying than Sondheim's PASSION. It's as likely as any musical
>>of the last 15 years to become a regional staple that will actually be
>>enjoyable THERE.
>
>
> Well... uh... I happened to like Passion when it was in
> Washington, D.C. (That's the only time I've ever seen it live.)
I've seen only the video of PASSION, and I liked it.
Agree about Taymor, disagree that otherwise it would still be running.
Steve Newport
charitably termed a "score." But, as you say, because of its humantity
and fairly well-crafted book and songs, BATB will play well without the
spectacle.
Re: Help in NYC
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Fri, Nov 22, 2002, 7:46am From:
matthe...@mindspring.com (Matthew A. Murray) <<<BATB is easily
the best of the Disney stage projects. It's as likely as any musical of
the last 15 years to become a regional staple that will actually be
enjoyable THERE. >>>
I agree with you about Beauty and the Beast. Yes, it's a more or less
straightforward adaptation of the film, but I like some of the songs
they added (particularly "Home," and "If I Can't Love Her") and think
that they made some effective changes to the story. It's perhaps
unnecessarily heavy on the spectacle side, but that's okay, because it's
a story about real people and real emotions, something the other two
Disney shows just aren't. The Lion King is as emotionally vacant as any
show I've seen, with a less effective book than most, and songs that,
frankly, are so bad, I can't even believe they were in the film version.
And as soon as I figure out what the heck Aida is about, I'll post it
here, but I have a sneaking suspicion it isn't really about anything...
Steve Newport
non-existent restrictions, and deny himself the pleasure of "casual
conversation" enjoyed by so many here. Why is it so hard to accept that
it's "two...two...two mints in one?"
Re: Help in NYC
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Fri, Nov 22, 2002, 2:11pm (EST+5)
From: mcal...@earthlink.net (Michael Callery)
<<<Paul Tauger wrote: This is not Introduction to Theater 101, or the
United States District Court.>>>
----------------
No one will read your posts, people will put you in their filter files.
This is not a casual conversation. This IS Introduction to Musical
Paul Tauger
"Michael Callery" <mcal...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3DDE3BC7...@earthlink.net...
> Paul Tauger wrote:
> >
> > Or what? This is internet, not Introduction to Theater 101, or the
United
> > States District Court. I've given my opinion. Feel free to reject it.
>
> Yes, no one will read your posts, people will put you in their filter
> files, and you are basically talking to air. You assume that because you
> post that people read your post? Really.
A thread is a conversation. You can join it or not, as you choose. Nothing
that I write here is of such personal moment that I'd be overly concerned if
not a single person read it; I have other outlets for that.
If you think it's appropriate to killfile me because I write my opinion, and
don't provide research citations, have at it.
>
> This is not a casual conversation. A personal argument is fine as long
> as you tell people why not just what you felt. A reasoned argument is
> even better where you can bring in scholars or critics or other voices
> to either back up or, as odd as this may sound, even disagree with you.
> (To which you have a good response.)
Sorry, this IS a casual conversation. If you think it's more, then I don't
envy your social or professional life. People in RATM chat about musical
theater (usually). I like musical theater, so I read the ng, and
occassionally post something. This isn't a university lecture hall, the
OpEd page of the New York Times, or the preface to Brocket's Theater
History. It's just a usenet newsgroup, one of tens of thousands, all filled
with people passing the time. That's all.
>
> This IS Introduction to Musical Theatre 101 and you should know that I
> feel sorry for you and for all of the others who think this is a chat
room.
LOL! Well, I guess I missed the day when the syllabus was handed out.
Thanks, but I've already got enough degrees (and enough of them in theater).
You can run a cyberspace lecture hall if you want, but count me out. And,
of course, you are free to killfile me to your heart's content.
I think I'll take a look at the latest posts to "It must be QUIZ . . . again
. . ." There were quite a few that had me stumped.
>
> Mike
Noel Katz
>being dangerous, provocative, daring, benign, benevolent, pleasing, happy,
>sad, indifferent, epic, intimate, or anything else, if a musical knows what
>it needs to be and then strives to do that as well as it can
>unapologetically, that's what matters to me.
Then you'll definitely want to catch the 20-minute cutting of THE COMPANY OF
WOMEN, a musical comedy about friendships between various women that finds
humor in the way people really interact with each other. If you don't find it
honest, don't hesitate to tell me.
Donnell Library, 20 W. 53, NYC on Tuesday, November 26 at 6. Free. (Also on
the bill: another 20-minute reading and five songs from various projects.
It'll be easy to make an 8 o'clock curtain afterwards.)
http://hometown.aol.com/noelkatz/main.html
Steve Newport
(BFS!)
Re: Help in NYC
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Fri, Nov 22, 2002, 5:48pm (EST+5)
From: ro...@thetop.org (Bushwhacker)
Steve Newport
often about having to pay. Curious. But I applaud what you've written
below.
Re: Help in NYC
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Fri, Nov 22, 2002, 11:02am
(EST-3) From: ptauger...@earthlink.net (Paul Tauger) to "Michael
Callery"
Sorry, this IS a casual conversation. If you think it's more, then I
don't envy your social or professional life. This isn't a university
lecture hall, the OpEd page of the New York Times, or the preface to
Brocket's Theater History. It's just a usenet newsgroup, one of tens of
thousands, all filled with people passing the time. That's all. I guess
I missed the day when the syllabus was handed out.
You can run a cyberspace lecture hall if you want. And, of course, you
Jonathan E. Rubin
> This is not a casual conversation. A personal argument is fine as long
> as you tell people why not just what you felt. A reasoned argument is
> even better where you can bring in scholars or critics or other voices
> to either back up or, as odd as this may sound, even disagree with you.
> (To which you have a good response.)
When compared to the alternative he set forth (i.e. the District
Court), RATM is, indeed, casual conversation. It's a bunch of people
who like musical theater talking about it. That's all. No need for
scholars, citations, or any such nonsense. All one needs here is
thoughts and opinions about musical theater.
> This IS Introduction to Musical Theatre 101
No, it's not. It's a newsgroup that contains postings from people with
a wide range of musical theater knowledge.
> and you should know that I feel sorry for you and for all of the others who >think this is a chat room.
No one ever mentioned the phrase "chat room" or even insinuated that
that's what RATM is.
lav...@webtv.net
town :)
Steve Newport
remember to be careful of those high-caloric adjectives. BFS!)
Re: Help in NYC
Group: rec.arts.theatre.musicals Date: Fri, Nov 22, 2002, 12:34pm
(EST-3) From: jonr...@aol.com (Jonathan E. Rubin)
to Michael Callery: RATM is, indeed, casual conversation. It's a bunch
of people who like musical theater talking about it. That's all. All one
needs here is thoughts and opinions about musical theater. No one ever
mentioned the phrase "chat room" or even insinuated...