Is LaChiusa's "darkness" passe?
Stephen Oles
zeitgeist. The days when bleak and nihilistic were in themselves refreshing
are long gone. Have we made no cultural progress in the half century since
the heyday of Samuel Beckett?
Darkness is the central cliche in all the arts from 1945-1999, and it goes
on and on. From the hit movie SEVEN, to the morbid crap showcased in the
"Sensation" show, to artists in all forms gravitating automatically to grim
subjects, the arts have become as wedded to shallow ugliness as Hallmark
cards are to shallow prettiness.
This fashionable tendency mars even scores as fine as PARADE and WILD PARTY,
where sentimental bleakness takes the place of meaningful revelations of
human character:
"I never knew anything at all."
"I will never understand ..."
"Where -- where do we belong?"
This kind of depressive handwringing seems modern to those whose notion of
modern is -- like Sondheim's -- rooted in mid-20th century nihilism.
Saying everything is crappy is no more *profound* than saying everything is
peachy. It's just a fashion -- like the wearing of black clothing by urban
trendies. It's still "in" with critics and academics, but IMO the
cultivated public has outgrown nihilism.
As late as SWEENEY TODD, audiences were surprised and provoked by bleakness,
but times change. Today SWEENEY's gang rape scene is about as shocking as
CAROUSEL's clambake. Audiences are no longer satisfied with fashionable
bleakness, and it's time for writers to wake up and notice.
Samuel Beckett said it all decades ago: God is dead, life is worthless, and
people suck. Yadda yadda yadda.
It seems there's a limit to the amount of time and money audiences will
spend to be told, over and over, that nothing matters. If that's all our
younger writers have to offer, no wonder audiences are flocking to revivals
of shows that refuse to fashionably deny the existence of hope, beauty,
poetry, goodness, altruism, forgiveness, and (god forbid) fun.
-- Steve in VB
"Jaime J. Weinman" <ja...@weinmans.com> wrote in message
news:084DFA70...@USW-EX0102-016.REMARQ.COM...
> I wrote:
>
> 'LaChiusa . . ."What most of Broadway's audiences really want,"
> he wrote, "is a nostalgia booster shot," but he can't give them
> that because "this country's cultural psyche is darker today."'
>
> Jesse Jones replied:
> "Spoken like an artist with integrity."
>
> *Like* an artist with integrity, perhaps...except that he's
> perpetuating a tired, silly stereotype about audiences and an
> equally tired, silly stereotype about our culture. Such a
> cliche'd view of the world does not a true artist make.
>
> Jaime J. Weinman
>
Noel Katz
>"Sensation" show
Wow, Steve. I didn't know you'd seen this show: Can you cite a single example
of a morbid work in the Sensation show at the Brooklyn Museum?
Elsewhere, you make some good points, but this one phrase gives me pause.
Zorro5280
(Noel Katz) writes:
>Can you cite a single example
>of a morbid work in the Sensation show at the Brooklyn Museum?
>
The display of dismembered body parts? That was pretty morbid. Yes, I know the
theory is that all living (or formally living) things are beautiful, but that
was stretching it.
Brooke Pierce
die" motto has gotten very tired. But surely you've noticed the difference
between, say, "Follies" and "The Wild Party"? The former ends rather bleakly,
but the latter offers hope.
I think we're seeing the next step in an evolution of the way dramatists are
thinking. Most of these new guys were pretty heavily influenced by Sondheim,
and maybe their tendency toward darker or more complex subject matter and style
reflects that, but they all strike me as being a good deal more optimistic and
even romantic (or sentimental, as you put it) at times. Their writing isn't
nihilistic. I think their writing is about people living in and coming to terms
with a society that often is ugly, but, ultimately, they are trying to ESCAPE
that. "God is dead, life is worthless, people suck, etc." - do you really get
that from "The Wild Party" or "Floyd Collins" or "Parade"? Say it ain't so! In
TWP we see some shallow, awful people, but it's about trying (and succeeding, I
think) to get beyond that superficial life. In "Floyd," the hero dies at the
end, but his spirit transcends death. "Parade" may be a tragedy, but it's one
where the protagonist becomes a better man through his trials and his widowed
wife becomes a strong woman. That's progress, isn't it? Characters moving
forward, moving on, improving themselves and growing - these are good things,
aren't they? Is that bleak?
Yes, the subjects of these shows are still rather dark, but to suggest that
darkness might be "passe" is kind of odd. I mean, should all shows be "light,"
if that's what's in? Of course, I DO think nihilism (not darkness, mind you) is
passe, but I always think those kinds of extremes are a tad silly anyway.
I would like to see a little more goodness, forgiveness, hope, altruism, beauty,
and all those other things you list in shows, but, you understand, you can't
have those things without their opposites - otherwise there isn't much conflict,
which is kinda important in drama. And I just don't agree that the new musicals
DENY all those good qualities, as you suggest. What they don't do is take them
for granted. There's a reason that the shows that exemplified those qualities
fell out of fashion - that "goodness" started to feel fake to audiences. The
happy endings were forced and not earned. What the new writers seem to be
trying to do is to earn that ending. Their characters go on journeys, they
struggle to become better people, and in the process they find hope, just like
most of us do in real life. Okay, so it's not always fun, but I do think it's
beautiful.
Brooke
Stephen Oles
appearing in various publications. I was thinking in particular of the
bisected livestock and the shark ...
-- Steve in VB
"Noel Katz" <noel...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000628180347...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
> >the morbid crap showcased in the
> >"Sensation" show
>
> Wow, Steve. I didn't know you'd seen this show: Can you cite a single
example
> of a morbid work in the Sensation show at the Brooklyn Museum?
>
Mike Benedetto
>Date: 06/28/2000 11:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Yeah. What she said.
I especially agree about the difference between darkness and *nihilism*. To
equate them is ridiculous, and therein lies the biggest fault in Stephen's
argument. I don't think anything's wrong with a simple happily-ever-after
ending, provided what precedes it is sufficiently interesting. But dark
stories, provided they have something to offer beyond the darkness itself (my
objection to LES MISERABLES), have even more potential for emotional and
intellectual impact.
I don't see what's trendy about that.
-Mike
"In this world, it's dog eat dog. And vice versa!"
-Maude
JCTravis
the
> zeitgeist. The days when bleak and nihilistic were in themselves
refreshing
> are long gone. Have we made no cultural progress in the half century
since
> the heyday of Samuel Beckett?
I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but tastes in art seem to go in
waves. I just got back from seeing SHAFT and sat through no less than four
previews of creepy ghostly shocking thrillers in the same vein as THE SIXTH
SENSE. The public wants everything, but when a formula works, there tend to
be imitators until the next "in thing" is found. Happy smiley
pastel-colored theatre has its place right along with the dark depressing
drag bodies through slime and blood type as well.
> Darkness is the central cliche in all the arts from 1945-1999, and it goes
> on and on. From the hit movie SEVEN, to the morbid crap showcased in the
> "Sensation" show, to artists in all forms gravitating automatically to
grim
> subjects, the arts have become as wedded to shallow ugliness as Hallmark
> cards are to shallow prettiness.
Lessee...in that time period we had ANNIE, 42nd STREET, and calendars by
Anne Geddes. That pretty much blows your statement that "all the arts from
1945-1999" have darkness as a "central cliche".
> This fashionable tendency mars even scores as fine as PARADE and WILD
PARTY,
> where sentimental bleakness takes the place of meaningful revelations of
> human character:
So...all art should be happy? I personally think that the most meaningful
revelations of human character come about through an examination of their
darknesses. You want happy characters throughout who don't change...don't
find happiness after a bleak period?
> "I never knew anything at all."
> "I will never understand ..."
> "Where -- where do we belong?"
>
> This kind of depressive handwringing seems modern to those whose notion of
> modern is -- like Sondheim's -- rooted in mid-20th century nihilism.
The statements above are statements which all people make at some time or
another if they do any sort of real thinking. They are universal and
therefore don't apply to just one period of time.
> Saying everything is crappy is no more *profound* than saying everything
is
> peachy. It's just a fashion -- like the wearing of black clothing by
urban
> trendies. It's still "in" with critics and academics, but IMO the
> cultivated public has outgrown nihilism.
Perhaps the "cultivated public" would rather not have inherent flaws of
humanity explored in their art because they really could care less.
> As late as SWEENEY TODD, audiences were surprised and provoked by
bleakness,
> but times change. Today SWEENEY's gang rape scene is about as shocking as
> CAROUSEL's clambake. Audiences are no longer satisfied with fashionable
> bleakness, and it's time for writers to wake up and notice.
The rape scene is Sweeney isn't shocking??? My god...what the hell kind of
theatre goes on up there in NYC?
> Samuel Beckett said it all decades ago: God is dead, life is worthless,
and
> people suck. Yadda yadda yadda.
>
> It seems there's a limit to the amount of time and money audiences will
> spend to be told, over and over, that nothing matters. If that's all our
> younger writers have to offer, no wonder audiences are flocking to
revivals
> of shows that refuse to fashionably deny the existence of hope, beauty,
> poetry, goodness, altruism, forgiveness, and (god forbid) fun.
Yes, I agree that being told that "nothing matters" over and over is
depressing, and I wouldn't want all art/theatre to be about that. But since
you bring this up in regard to LaChiusa and I'm assuming WILD PARTY, then I
can only venture that you haven't honestly listened to that music very
carefully. The whole *point* is that Queenie moves from "nothing matters,
let's party" to "I matter, and therefore everything around me matters and I
can't do this anymore." That to me is good theatre. If we didn't see the
frightening reality of her existence, then her escape of it at the end
wouldn't be quite so satisfying.
And my god, I think WILD PARTY has one of the most *fun* scores ever
written. It's written very well for people who know how to use their
voices, and nothing makes me happier than duetting with Tonya Pinkins in
"Black is a Moocher" and trying to match her vocal inflections. I surely
have have embarassed myself in the car more times than I can count belting,
"I need to feel your sex, I need to hear my name..." I pretty much can
perform "Eddie and Mae" all by myself, how much fun is that song? "In
Detroit the theatre ran outta A's, so the marquee read...THE CHOMP!"
Sometimes being able to pretend you're wild, or watching good actors enact
it for you is a good way to understand and think those sorts of thoughts
safely where you know nobody is actually hurt. Art imitates life.
Jesse Jones
> I'm with Jaime. La Chiusa's remarks suggest he's several decades behind the
> zeitgeist. The days when bleak and nihilistic were in themselves refreshing
> are long gone. Have we made no cultural progress in the half century since
> the heyday of Samuel Beckett?
Others have ably made the point that there is nothing nihilistic about La
Chiusa's work. My question to you, Stephen, is, where is the zeitgeist today?
Jesse Jones
> Now, now, now, Stephen, be fair. You're right, the "life sucks and then you
> die" motto has gotten very tired. But surely you've noticed the difference
> between, say, "Follies" and "The Wild Party"? The former ends rather bleakly,
> but the latter offers hope.
>
> I think we're seeing the next step in an evolution of the way dramatists are
> thinking.
Excellent post, Brooke. There is indeed no nihilism in the works of JRB and
MJLaC. It seems to me we struggle to define the zeitgeist, to accept Stephen's
choice, of our own time. If nihilism was a "modern" rejection of traditions,
"post-modernism" trie(s)(d) to move beyond nihilism.
> that. "God is dead, life is worthless, people suck, etc." - do you really get
> that from "The Wild Party" or "Floyd Collins" or "Parade"? Say it ain't so! In
It's not there!
> TWP we see some shallow, awful people, but it's about trying (and succeeding, I
> think) to get beyond that superficial life. In "Floyd," the hero dies at the
> end, but his spirit transcends death.
And what role does spirituality play in all of this?
> "Parade" may be a tragedy, but it's one
> where the protagonist becomes a better man through his trials and his widowed
> wife becomes a strong woman. That's progress, isn't it?
I'm not sure this is what takes Parade out of nihilism. There is something
timeless and noble (and therefore not nihilistic) about messages of social justice.
Doc Bender
> I'm with Jaime. La Chiusa's remarks suggest he's several decades behind
the
> zeitgeist. The days when bleak and nihilistic were in themselves
refreshing
> are long gone. Have we made no cultural progress in the half century
since
> the heyday of Samuel Beckett?....
> Darkness is the central cliche in all the arts from 1945-1999, and it goes
> on and on....
>> "I never knew anything at all."
>> "I will never understand ..."
>> "Where -- where do we belong?"
>>
>> This kind of depressive handwringing seems modern to those whose notion of
>> modern is -- like Sondheim's -- rooted in mid-20th century nihilism.
And it seems like the human condition to anyone who's read literature from the
Greeks onward. Gimme a break. Do I really have to list 2,000 artists who
dealt with death and depressing topics before the 20th century to show how
silly this argument is?
What I object to in art these days is not the subject matter or the theme, but
the trite way in which it is presented. I think that is what you object to as
well.
> Samuel Beckett said it all decades ago: God is dead, life is worthless,
and
> people suck. Yadda yadda yadda.
Actually, this is not what Beckett said at all. His works are very dark, but
life-affirming in a particular sense. And artists were saying things such as
God is dead, life is worthless and people suck thousands of years before
Beckett supposedly did.
Doc Bender
Weissharry
Not Stephen, but I'll chime in.
I believe the central issue isn't where the art is going, but what we expect
audiences to drop $75 a ticket on. I loved Assassins, but there's no way
Broadway audiences are going to drop that kind of money on it for any extended
run. The revival of JCS was ugly and difficult to watch. No surprise that word
of mouth isn't leading to a longer run.
Didn't see Wild Party but from listening to the disc, I'm not at all surprised
it doesn't last. Ultimately, for a musical to survive on Broadway, it has to
appeal to a wide audience. That doesn't mean it has to be all sweetness and
light (Les Miz, Gypsy, Carousel, etc. all are packed with ugly behavior). But
there's got to be something that brings a large audience -- not just a handful
-- through the trials. In the work I've seen by LaChuisa (Petrified Prince,
Hello Again) and the work I've only heard (Wild Party, Marie Christine),
doesn't yet give that. My first listen to The Wild Party turned me off.
Repeated listenings have led me to respect it more, but I perfectly understand
why ticket buyers aren't flocking and why many of those who experience the
score for the first time in the theater (where, IMO, it ideally should be heard
for the first time), aren't pushing their friends and family to run out and see
it.
I don't believe the zeigeist changed. I think the composers did. Tell me a
sweetness-and-light musical that would have been boffo in an earlier era that
didn't succeed because the zeitgeist changed?
Noel Katz
>Tell me a
>sweetness-and-light musical that would have been boffo in an earlier era that
>didn't succeed because the zeitgeist changed?
Big
Weissharry
>>Tell me a
>>sweetness-and-light musical that would have been boffo in an earlier era
>that didn't succeed because the zeitgeist changed?
>
>Big
Noel,
Hmmmm. I'm not sure how "sweetness and light" Big actually is. One of the
complications with the show, I think, is that it tries to have it both ways.
There is some sharp psychological stuff going on that the writers seem to want
to explore -- sometimes. Other times it's kids dancing.
I agree that Big might have fared better in a different time -- but I don't
think we're talking decades. I think it's more like weeks. Wasn't one of Big's
big problems the fact that Rent was getting the hype?
(Keep in mind, I'm speaking as someone who didn't see the original product of
Big, but have listened to the OCR, saw the revised national tour, and caught a
regional amatuer production).
--Lou
Stephen Oles
Of course I don't think all shows should be "light". I don't think they
should all be so self-consciously heavy, is all. I agree with virtually
every word you say.
I didn't mean to sound like I was dissing TWP or PARADE or FLOYD COLLINS
(which I didn't even mention). These are all fine scores. I was trying to
put my finger on certain fashionable tendencies which, I think, are not
helping new dramatic works (not just musicals) to connect with today's
audiences.
Thanks for reading my post and responding so thoughtfully.
-- Steve in VB
"Brooke Pierce" <brp...@is.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:395AC216...@is.nyu.edu...
> Now, now, now, Stephen, be fair. You're right, the "life sucks and then
you
> die" motto has gotten very tired. But surely you've noticed the
difference
> between, say, "Follies" and "The Wild Party"? The former ends rather
bleakly,
> but the latter offers hope.
>
> I think we're seeing the next step in an evolution of the way dramatists
are
> thinking. Most of these new guys were pretty heavily influenced by
Sondheim,
> and maybe their tendency toward darker or more complex subject matter and
style
> reflects that, but they all strike me as being a good deal more optimistic
and
> even romantic (or sentimental, as you put it) at times. Their writing
isn't
> nihilistic. I think their writing is about people living in and coming to
terms
> with a society that often is ugly, but, ultimately, they are trying to
ESCAPE
> that. "God is dead, life is worthless, people suck, etc." - do you really
get
> that from "The Wild Party" or "Floyd Collins" or "Parade"? Say it ain't
so! In
> TWP we see some shallow, awful people, but it's about trying (and
succeeding, I
> think) to get beyond that superficial life. In "Floyd," the hero dies at
the
> end, but his spirit transcends death. "Parade" may be a tragedy, but it's
one
> where the protagonist becomes a better man through his trials and his
widowed
> Brooke
>
>
> Stephen Oles wrote:
>
> > I'm with Jaime. La Chiusa's remarks suggest he's several decades behind
the
> > zeitgeist. The days when bleak and nihilistic were in themselves
refreshing
> > are long gone. Have we made no cultural progress in the half century
since
> > the heyday of Samuel Beckett?
> >
> > Darkness is the central cliche in all the arts from 1945-1999, and it
goes
> > on and on. From the hit movie SEVEN, to the morbid crap showcased in
the
> > "Sensation" show, to artists in all forms gravitating automatically to
grim
> > subjects, the arts have become as wedded to shallow ugliness as Hallmark
> > cards are to shallow prettiness.
> >
> > This fashionable tendency mars even scores as fine as PARADE and WILD
PARTY,
> > where sentimental bleakness takes the place of meaningful revelations of
> > human character:
> >
> > "I never knew anything at all."
> > "I will never understand ..."
> > "Where -- where do we belong?"
> >
> > This kind of depressive handwringing seems modern to those whose notion
of
> > modern is -- like Sondheim's -- rooted in mid-20th century nihilism.
> >
> > Saying everything is crappy is no more *profound* than saying everything
is
> > peachy. It's just a fashion -- like the wearing of black clothing by
urban
> > trendies. It's still "in" with critics and academics, but IMO the
> > cultivated public has outgrown nihilism.
> >
> > As late as SWEENEY TODD, audiences were surprised and provoked by
bleakness,
> > but times change. Today SWEENEY's gang rape scene is about as shocking
as
> > CAROUSEL's clambake. Audiences are no longer satisfied with fashionable
> > bleakness, and it's time for writers to wake up and notice.
> >
> > Samuel Beckett said it all decades ago: God is dead, life is worthless,
and
> > people suck. Yadda yadda yadda.
> >
> > It seems there's a limit to the amount of time and money audiences will
> > spend to be told, over and over, that nothing matters. If that's all
our
> > younger writers have to offer, no wonder audiences are flocking to
revivals
> > of shows that refuse to fashionably deny the existence of hope, beauty,
> > poetry, goodness, altruism, forgiveness, and (god forbid) fun.
> >
> > -- Steve in VB
> >
>
>
Stephen Oles
that really works ... really connects with today's audiences. The darkness
of LES MIS engages an audience's mind and emotions. When darkness merely
distances and repells, I don't think it's being effective.
-- Steve in VB
"Mike Benedetto" <epent...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000629010755...@ng-ba1.aol.com...
> >From: Brooke Pierce brp...@is.nyu.edu
> >Date: 06/28/2000 11:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>
Frederick
"Stephen Oles" wrote:
> Darkness is the central cliche in all the arts from 1945-1999, and it goes
> on and on. From the hit movie SEVEN, to the morbid crap showcased in the
> "Sensation" show, to artists in all forms gravitating automatically to
grim
> subjects, the arts have become as wedded to shallow ugliness as Hallmark
> cards are to shallow prettiness.
Ah, yes. Yet another tiresome rant at the alleged dark, nihilistic forces
that are supposedly corrupting our culture. Of the thousands of movies that
have come out between 1945 and 1999, choose one (which I actually liked) as
representing all that is wrong with Western civilization, for some bizarre
reason (actually, I thought SEVEN had a highly moral message to it, but what
do I know?) Ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that, in fact,
"mass culture" during this same period celebrates and highlights quite the
opposite. Perhaps Stephen would prefer to live in a world where the only art
hanging in our museums are Norman Rockwell kids and dogs playing poker;
revivals of No No Nanette and Very Good Eddie; Disney movies (pre-Mirimax of
course), and Reader's Digest and Children's Highlights.
But of course, the bigger lie is in trying to lay at the feet of truly
creative artists (who, after all, have never DOMINATED the art world in the
manner that Stephen would have you believe), all of the ills of the 20th and
now 21st centuries. Blame Sondheim, Mapplethorpe, Beckett, and other
geniuses (and ask yourself when the last time Beckett had a best seller on
the NY Times list) for our moral bankruptcy, and try to ignore the truth and
beauty contained in their works.
Stephen, try to lay off listening to Michael Medved, and for god sakes, get
some caffeine in you.
---Frederick (in Seattle)
Stephen Oles
score, which I play frequently, admire and enjoy.
I was referring to La Chiusa's quoted remark to the effect that today's art
should be dark because today's ethos is dark.
As another poster pointed out: darker than what? World War Two? The
Holocaust? The Great Depression?
My basic point is that a lot of artistic "darkness" is more a fashion
statement than a genuine response to the needs of today's audiences.
Ever notice how Steven Spielberg never got any respect from critics until he
started making self-consciously dark films like SCHINDLER and SAVING PRIVATE
RYAN? Or how the "dark" rantings of gangsta rappers automatically command
respect from critics while "non-dark" rappers like Hammer are scorned?
If the darkness of some of our new shows really connected with a broad
audience, wouldn't they still be running?
-- Steve in VB
"Jesse Jones" <jesse...@davisjones.com> wrote in message
news:395B35D1...@davisjones.com...
> Stephen Oles wrote:
>
> > I'm with Jaime. La Chiusa's remarks suggest he's several decades behind
the
> > zeitgeist. The days when bleak and nihilistic were in themselves
refreshing
> > are long gone. Have we made no cultural progress in the half century
since
> > the heyday of Samuel Beckett?
>
> Others have ably made the point that there is nothing nihilistic about
La
> Chiusa's work. My question to you, Stephen, is, where is the zeitgeist
today?
>
>
Stephen Oles
> Darkness is the central cliche in all the arts from 1945-1999, and it
goes on and on>
"JCTravis" wrote:
> Lessee...in that time period we had ANNIE, 42nd STREET, and calendars by
> Anne Geddes. That pretty much blows your statement that "all the arts
from
> 1945-1999" have darkness as a "central cliche".
JC, if you compare my actual statement to your interpretation of it, you'll
see you not only misunderstood, you misquoted me.
No one said "all the arts from 1945-1999" were anything. Any statement
that broad would have to be wrong. Let me try restating in a different way:
Darkness is the central quality that attracted critical raves and peer
respect in the arts from 1945-1999. Exceptions to this rule -- like HOW TO
SUCCEED winning the Pulitzer -- are quite extraordinary.
Take an example from the movies: David Lynch's BLUE VELVET is a dull, badly
written, directed, and acted thriller. BUT Lynch loaded it up with
self-conscious "darkness" and morbid imagry. Result? Critics raved and
acclaimed Lynch as the most important director of the day.
As time has passed, BLUE VELVET has sunk in critical estimation, but its
initial reception shows how advantageous it can be for an artist to ladle on
the darkness. Middleclass critcs can be counted on to rave -- if only to
prove that they're too sophisticated to be shocked or repulsed.
-- Steve in VB
Stephen Oles
Dark themes -- even nihilism -- have appeared in masterpieces from the
beginning. But the profoundly searching and humane darkness of KING LEAR
or THE ORESTEIA is a far cry from trite cynicism, which is what I was trying
to criticize.
-- Steve in VB
"Doc Bender" <docb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000629105124...@ng-fu1.aol.com...
> Stephen Oles wrote:
>
> > I'm with Jaime. La Chiusa's remarks suggest he's several decades behind
> the
> > zeitgeist. The days when bleak and nihilistic were in themselves
> refreshing
> > are long gone. Have we made no cultural progress in the half century
> since
> > the heyday of Samuel Beckett?....
> > Darkness is the central cliche in all the arts from 1945-1999, and it
goes
> > on and on....
> >> "I never knew anything at all."
> >> "I will never understand ..."
> >> "Where -- where do we belong?"
> >>
> >> This kind of depressive handwringing seems modern to those whose notion
of
> >> modern is -- like Sondheim's -- rooted in mid-20th century nihilism.
>
> And it seems like the human condition to anyone who's read literature from
the
> Greeks onward. Gimme a break. Do I really have to list 2,000 artists who
> dealt with death and depressing topics before the 20th century to show how
> silly this argument is?
>
> What I object to in art these days is not the subject matter or the theme,
but
> the trite way in which it is presented. I think that is what you object
to as
> well.
>
> > Samuel Beckett said it all decades ago: God is dead, life is worthless,
> and
> > people suck. Yadda yadda yadda.
>
Stephen Oles
>Perhaps Stephen would prefer to live in a world where the only art
> hanging in our museums are Norman Rockwell kids and dogs playing poker.
Thanks, Frederick. I can always count on you for a snide, idiotic attack
which has nothing to with anything I posted. Dogs playing poker ... please.
-- Steve in VB
Jaime J. Weinman
"Ah, yes. Yet another tiresome rant at the alleged dark,
nihilistic forces that are supposedly corrupting our culture...
But of course, the bigger lie is in trying to lay at the feet of
truly creative artists (who, after all, have never
DOMINATED the art world in the manner that Stephen would have you
believe), all of the ills of the 20th and now 21st
centuries."
Like, wow. I'd love to know how you got all that from Stephen's
post; though I think he's a bit mixed-up in some of his points, I
can't see that he was accusing anybody of any worse sin than
being dreary. I saw nothing to indicate that he thought people
are being "corrupted" by such works (after all, people can't be
corrupted by things they don't go to see in the first place).
"Perhaps Stephen would prefer to
live in a world where the only art hanging in our museums are
Norman Rockwell kids and dogs playing poker;
revivals of No No Nanette and Very Good Eddie; Disney movies
(pre-Mirimax of course), and Reader's Digest and
Children's Highlights."
Like, again, wow. Why don't you write a book about this,
Frederick; you can call it "Slouching Towards Candyland." :>
While I don't want to get too deep into this (except to say
that fine musicals like No No Nanette and Very Good Eddie should
not be insulted by being lumped in with Reader's Digest, and that
the best Disney movies like Pinocchio and Dumbo are often very
aware of the dark side of life), I will just note that "Life
sucks" is as much of a cliche as "Life is good," and that
bleak messages can lie to us just as adroitly as cheerful
messages. (To use an example from musicals, MERRILY WE ROLL
ALONG--not only the musical but the original play-- is a festival
of humbug and corny messages about the evils of success and the
wonderfulness of "youthful idealism"; even NO NO NANETTE is more
realistic.) Which just indicates that it's not what the author
has to say, but whether he can say it on something higher than a
Children's Highlights level of artistry.
Jaime J. Weinman
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Frederick
"Stephen Oles" wrote:
> I think we're right on the same page here, Doc.
>
> Dark themes -- even nihilism -- have appeared in masterpieces from the
> beginning. But the profoundly searching and humane darkness of KING LEAR
> or THE ORESTEIA is a far cry from trite cynicism, which is what I was
trying
> to criticize.
>
So then why do create a "straw man" argument, and out of all of the movies
you could have possibly chosen, you use SEVEN (for some bizarre reason) to
prove your thesis. Why not use AMERICAN BEAUTY or THE ICE STORM as examples,
both profound films with a lot more on their minds than the sensationalism
that you seem to want to take SEVEN to task for? What about all of the
"dark" even nihilistic films of Bunuel, Bergman, Wilder, Kurosawa that were
created during the past fifty years. Choosing SEVEN as your representative
film is like choosing a penny dreadful serial by some long forgotten writer
over the works of Dickens. Play fair.
Nicole Delessert Shields
> "Stephen Oles" wrote:
>
> > Darkness is the central cliche in all the arts from 1945-1999, and it goes
> > "Sensation" show, to artists in all forms gravitating automatically to
> grim
> > subjects, the arts have become as wedded to shallow ugliness as Hallmark
> > cards are to shallow prettiness.
>
> that are supposedly corrupting our culture.
Not so much making our culture corrupt, as making it cheesey. "Look at me,
I'm so deeeeeeep and profound and dark and miserable, watch me staple my
hand to my forehead."
There's an assumption among some folks that dark and gloomy = deep and
profound. There's also an assumption that shocking = profound.
I'm of the opinion that any work of art needs to stand on something more
than being shocking or dark.
-Nicole
sgain...@my-deja.com
> As time has passed, BLUE VELVET has sunk in critical estimation, but its
> initial reception shows how advantageous it can be for an artist to ladle on
> the darkness. Middleclass critcs can be counted on to rave -- if only to
> prove that they're too sophisticated to be shocked or repulsed.
>
Is this entirely true? Is it the critical opinion of 'Blue Velvet' that has
really changed, or the estimation of Lynch himself. To whatever extent BV's
rep was sullied, I'd suspect it has more to do with the simple-mindedly,
"self-conciously weird" stuff Lynch insisted on churning out eternally
afterwards (of course, last year's brilliant and arguably "sentimental"
Straight Story notwithstanding). I think Lynch being a 'one trick pony' is
more what people tired of. I'm pretty certain many still consider BV, taken
on it's own, to be a fine film. The idea that it's simply a bunch of
self-concious darkness thrown on top of a mediocre thriller, is to miss much
of it's black comic elements (much of it plays as satire on purpose).
Anyway, had he done Straight Story as his next film, BV might never had
suffered any reconsideration.
Sondheim's assorted chosen subject matters are hardly what I think would
qualify as relentlessly grim (I'm not saying that anyone here does). And they
are hardly one note. Is the death of America's innocence (or the fading of
youth and it's accompanying optimism), say, not a valid or timely topic for
expression in any artform, if (and this is the key) if it's done well. Is the
message of "Follies", in some way, not founded, simply because it's not
hopeful. Is it not hopeful simply to be "different" and "shocking"? I don't
think so.
I've no problem with matters being handled in a hopelessly misanthropic,
nihilistic way if it has artistic purpose, and most importantly, quality.
Positive art is equally valid and important. People's muses vary, as do their
artistic agendas. Zeitgeist-schmeitgeist, it's nice that the American public
has finally, to some extent, opened their minds to "darker" ideas in their
pop-culture. Believe me, the sentimental, optimistic and hopeful will never
be edged out.
There's plenty of room for both Frank Capra and Ingmar Bergman (both
brilliant, both widely regarded as such).
Nihilism is not just shock tactics, it can be a very real expression of where
the human mind and soul can sometimes go.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Frederick
"Stephen Oles" wrote:
>
> No one said "all the arts from 1945-1999" were anything. Any statement
> that broad would have to be wrong. Let me try restating in a different
way:
>
> Darkness is the central quality that attracted critical raves and peer
> respect in the arts from 1945-1999. Exceptions to this rule -- like HOW
TO
> SUCCEED winning the Pulitzer -- are quite extraordinary.
Hmm, lets see what we have in the way of Tony Winners for those years, and
how dark and nihilistic these shows are:
1949 - KISS ME KATE
1950 - SOUTH PACIFIC
1951- GUYS AND DOLLS
1955 - PAJAMA GAME
1956- DAMN YANKEES (ooh, Satan...too dark?)
1957 - MY FAIR LADY
1958 - THE MUSIC MAN
1961 - BYE BYE BIRDIE
1963 - FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON WAY TO FORUM
1964 - HELLO DOLLY
1969 - 1776
1975 - THE WIZ
1976 - CHORUS LINE
1977 - ANNIE
1983 - CATS
1984 - LA CAGE AUX FOLLES
1989 - JEROME ROBBINS BROADWAy
1990 - CITY OF ANGELS
1991 - WILL ROGERS FOLLIES
(this is just an annotated list --- I left out plenty of non-dark,
non-nihilistic best musicals --- not to mention dozens of nominees)
In other words, this theory is strictly from hunger.
>
> Take an example from the movies: David Lynch's BLUE VELVET is a dull,
badly
> written, directed, and acted thriller. BUT Lynch loaded it up with
> self-conscious "darkness" and morbid imagery. Result? Critics raved and
> acclaimed Lynch as the most important director of the day.
So what? It didn't do particularly well at the box office, it didn't win any
Oscars, and the fact that you can find a self-conscious film that revels in
its own decadence and depravity proves what, pray tell?
> As time has passed, BLUE VELVET has sunk in critical estimation, but its
> initial reception shows how advantageous it can be for an artist to ladle
on
> the darkness. Middleclass critics can be counted on to rave -- if only to
> prove that they're too sophisticated to be shocked or repulsed.
But it wasn't particularly advantageous to Lynch, as all of his subsequent
films (except for the recent STRAIGHT STORY) has shown. He has been a joke
in Hollywood for the past decade, and his films have been poison at the box
office. The irony is, that when he finally makes a film that lives up to the
promise he showed in THE ELEPHANT MAN, the crowds did not flock to see it.
---Frederick
Frederick
"Stephen Oles" wrote:
>
> >Perhaps Stephen would prefer to live in a world where the only art
>
> Thanks, Frederick. I can always count on you for a snide, idiotic attack
> which has nothing to with anything I posted. Dogs playing poker ...
So what else is one to think when you encapsulate the past fifty years of
art into one controversial, and undoubtedly non-representative show, which,
from all evidence, you have scant knowledge of anyway. What happened to the
gratuitous swipes at Serrano? Not hanging out with Guiliani enough this
week?
Frederick
"Jaime J. Weinman" wrote:
>
> "Ah, yes. Yet another tiresome rant at the alleged dark,
> But of course, the bigger lie is in trying to lay at the feet of
> truly creative artists (who, after all, have never
> DOMINATED the art world in the manner that Stephen would have you
> believe), all of the ills of the 20th and now 21st
> centuries."
>
> Like, wow. I'd love to know how you got all that from Stephen's
> post; though I think he's a bit mixed-up in some of his points, I
> can't see that he was accusing anybody of any worse sin than
> being dreary. I saw nothing to indicate that he thought people
> are being "corrupted" by such works (after all, people can't be
> corrupted by things they don't go to see in the first place).
Its called "subtext." Besides the fact that he is completely wrong, why
would anyone spend so much time
bemoaning dreariness. Based on other postings by Oles, methinks there is an
agenda.
>
> "Perhaps Stephen would prefer to
> live in a world where the only art hanging in our museums are
> Norman Rockwell kids and dogs playing poker;
> revivals of No No Nanette and Very Good Eddie; Disney movies
> (pre-Mirimax of course), and Reader's Digest and
> Children's Highlights."
>
> Like, again, wow. Why don't you write a book about this,
> Frederick; you can call it "Slouching Towards Candyland." :>
I like that, actually. Thanks.
> While I don't want to get too deep into this (except to say
> that fine musicals like No No Nanette and Very Good Eddie should
> not be insulted by being lumped in with Reader's Digest, and that
> the best Disney movies like Pinocchio and Dumbo are often very
> aware of the dark side of life), I will just note that "Life
> sucks" is as much of a cliche as "Life is good," and that
> bleak messages can lie to us just as adroitly as cheerful
> messages. (To use an example from musicals, MERRILY WE ROLL
> ALONG--not only the musical but the original play-- is a festival
> of humbug and corny messages about the evils of success and the
> wonderfulness of "youthful idealism"; even NO NO NANETTE is more
> realistic.) Which just indicates that it's not what the author
> has to say, but whether he can say it on something higher than a
> Children's Highlights level of artistry.
I dont disagree with your assessment (although I disagree on MERRILY, which
I still consider a brilliantly flawed show).
The point is, the public (and critics) can generally see through cliches,
whether they are cheery and pollyannish, or are purposely dark and depraved.
Stephen's rant seemed to me unfocused and unsupportable by the past fifty
years of cultural history, and it left me with the bigger question, "What
exactly is your point." If it is just a diatribe against darkness, pardon me
while I yawn.
---Frederick
Mike Benedetto
>Date: 06/29/2000 3:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>But I would say LES MISERABLES is the *best* example of a "dark" musical
>that really works ... really connects with today's audiences. The darkness
>of LES MIS engages an audience's mind and emotions. When darkness merely
>distances and repells, I don't think it's being effective.
I think LM is manipulative, pretentious and generally a pack of lies. It
promises insights it never delivers, but manages to distract its audience with
attractive music and a remarkable physical production. We can't help but care
about the horrible life Fantine leads, but when she dies within a few minutes
of our meeting her, why should we continue to care? Why should we begin to care
about the shallow relationship between Marius and Cosette? Why does Eponine
love Marius -- has a life with the Thernardiers given her premature dementia?
Why should we be moved by Valjean's sacrifices when they ultimately mean
nothing? (That is, every time he risks being exposed, he remains free and
wealthy.)
We may be veering from the point of this thread here... but I would love it if
someone who likes that show could explain to me exactly what's profound about
it.
At any rate, I don't entirely agree or disagree with your conclusion about dark
musicals. If it's impossible to feel an emotional stake in the proceedings
because the cynicism is so palpable, yeah, maybe it's gone too far. But I think
it's also possible for a musical to succeed *by* creating a distance, creating
an atmosphere that's completely cold but ultimately compelling. I'd put
ASSASSINS in that category.
Doc Bender
>I think LM is manipulative, pretentious and generally a pack of lies. It
>promises insights it never delivers, but manages to distract its audience
>with
>attractive music...
Damn, that's what I would have said about Assassins. And I love Sondheim.
Great score, but manipulative and pretentious as hell.
Doc Bender
Brooke Pierce
I totally agree with you on that one, Doc. ASSASSINS is one of those shows
that I thought was nearly perfect - incredible score, well-written and
hilarious book - but I found it ultimately irritating and was completely
unconvinced of what I thought the authors were trying to tell me. The best
thing they did with that show was to add "Something Just Broke." That song
gave the audience an "in" into the story and it was the one moment where I
didn't feel so removed from the action.
Brooke
Stephen Oles
-- Steve in VB
"Frederick" <rasho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:emImo9g4$GA.328@cpmsnbbsa08...
>
> "Stephen Oles" wrote:
> >
> > >Perhaps Stephen would prefer to live in a world where the only art
> > > hanging in our museums are Norman Rockwell kids and dogs playing
Brooke Pierce
"nihilism" as almost synonymous with "dark." As it happens, Stephen, I've often
felt exactly what you were stating about how the sort of trendy nihilism has
become very tired.
In the 20th century, art starting making a lot of *statements* (and doing so
very self-consciously). It was a reaction to the war, to industrialism, to
harder times, etc., and there was a time when people needed to be aware that all
was not perfect. Art was good for shaking things up and making people wise to
the harsher realities. But these days, that does seem a bit passe. (Not that
there aren't ills in society, but I'd say most of us - certainly those of us who
can afford the price of a theater ticket - have got it pretty good.)
I'm studying playwriting in college, and we all have to come in with stuff we
write, and I noticed, especially during my first year, that a lot of people were
writing these horrible cliches and restating things that other writers had said
- and said much better - years ago. Why, did you know that there is hypocrisy
in religion? There is! And I'll be damned if every 18 year old in my class
didn't JUST seem to have figured it out! And they talk about it like it's a
revelation! Nevermind that Moliere and Shakespeare were making jokes about it
so many years ago.
So I'd have to say that what I think has gotten truly tired is disillusion and
outrage. I know that probably isn't a fair thing to say, especially since young
people will always feel disillusion and outrage as they wake up to reality, but
there isn't really any excuse for people over 30 to be going on about it. And
what's worse is when somebody writes some dreary awful treatise where a hero
starts out happy in the world and then is faced with the aforementioned "harsh
realities" and becomes disillusioned, and then a bunch of critics and theatre
people praise it to the rafters because it's "gritty," meanwhile the rest of the
public is sitting there thinking "You know, I can't identify with this and I
hate the people in this play and nothing here has moved me one bit." And that
happens, all the time. And I sense that that's more of what you're gunning
against.
My feeling about shows like "Parade" and "The Wild Party" are that they're a
different kind of animal that what I proposed above. I've already basically
said what I have to say about them in that respect, but I think they take the
oppositie approach to dreary disillusionment drama. They *start* with a dark
situation and work through it. Instead of being about people discovering that
life sucks, they're about people discovering that life is worth living or worth
fighting for. Even though they're dark, there's a light at the end of the
tunnel.
Now my question would be: Why has Les Miz, which is terribly dreary (a little
boy gets SHOT, for crying out loud!), succeeded? Is a lot of it due to the hype
and the marketing that draws tourists in? If Parade had gotten all that hype,
might it have done better? (Incidentally, Parade has been doing really well on
*tour*. The audiences seem to be responding better than they did in New York -
they're getting standing ovations all the time. And the reviews have been
excellent. I think that's interesting.)
Brooke
Frederick
"Stephen Oles" wrote:
> Frederick, you may kiss my black ass.
>
Proving exactly how "white" you are, pal.
Stephen Oles
their posts, your vitriol will not merit a serious response.
If you want to play with the grown-ups, you should act like one.
-- Steve in VB
"Frederick" <rasho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OwCKfhg4$GA.435@cpmsnbbsa08...
Frederick
"Stephen Oles" wrote:
> Frederick, until you start addressing the points people actually raise in
> their posts, your vitriol will not merit a serious response.
>
> If you want to play with the grown-ups, you should act like one.
Stephen, if you are too cowardly to respond to my post below, just say so.
There was absolutely nothing vitriolic in my post, and I raised legitimate
points that you are obviously unwilling or unable to respond to, so by all
means continue to be the intellectually dishonest toad that you have always
been up to now. (btw, i do hereby formally acknowledge the vitriol in THIS
post).
Stephen Oles
the Pulitzer Prize and the Tony Awards are the same thing. This will come
as a surprise to the Pulitzer committee ...
Good light entertainment (hell, even lousy light entertainment) generally
succeeds at the box office and at industry awards, like the Tonys, Oscars,
or Grammys.
Critical plaudits and elite approval on the other hand (like the Pulitzers)
gravitated towards "dark" work in all the arts throughout the 20th century,
but especially after the war. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it
does put artists who work in a sunnier vein at a disadvantage. If Mozart
were alive today, elite opinion would probably write him off as a
lightweight ... not dark enough to be a serious composer.
Once again, please read before you rant. Or find someone better acquainted
with English prose who can explain my -posts to you -- :-}
-- Steve in VB
"Frederick" <rasho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OZ1ES8g4$GA.399@cpmsnbbsa08...
Stephen Oles
>
> There's plenty of room for both Frank Capra and Ingmar Bergman (both
brilliant, both widely regarded as such).
I absolutely agree, but remember Capra's films were murdered by critics for
many decades. Elite opinion considered him a sentimental hack peddling
"Capra-corn" to the masses. Only in recent years have his films risen a bit
in critical estimation. Even now, many critics dismiss IT'S A WONDERFUL
LIFE as a cheesy Hallmark greeting card of a movie
>
> Nihilism is not just shock tactics, it can be a very real expression of
where the human mind and soul can sometimes go.
Agreed! The nihilism of KING LEAR, or the novels of Nathaneal West, is as
horrifying as it is right on the money. This is how life looks to us in our
bleakest moments.
But *cheap* nihilism is no more worthwhile than cheap sentimentality. That
was the point I meant to make.
Certainly nothing's wrong with handling dark themes in a musical. On the
contrary, when it works -- as in MOST HAPPY FELLA, CABARET, CHICAGO, PORGY &
BESS, etc. etc. it's wonderful. For heaven's sake, I'm personally writing
a musical that deals with gang rape and drug dealing.
My only objection is to works which are dark or repulsive without being
particularly good. The movie SEVEN occured to me as an example of this kind
of work.
-- Steve in VB
Frederick
"Stephen Oles" wrote:
> Frederick, your entire lengthy post seems to be based on an assumption
that
> the Pulitzer Prize and the Tony Awards are the same thing. This will come
> as a surprise to the Pulitzer committee ...
For someone who complains that he is constantly misread, you aren't very
good at reading other people's posts.
Since there is no specific Pulitzer Prize for musicals, it didnt seem
worthwhile to name those musicals that had won a Pulitzer to disprove your
rather tortuous theory. I figured the winners of Tony Awards were as good an
indicator of both popular and critical successes, and since there seems to
be a definite DEARTH of the dark and nihilistic type of shows that you seems
to feel have become the standard for the latter half of the twentieth
century, I thought I would offer up just a few examples to show how absurd
your theory really is.
> Good light entertainment (hell, even lousy light entertainment) generally
> succeeds at the box office and at industry awards, like the Tonys, Oscars,
> or Grammys.
Pearl Buck won a Nobel Prize.
>
> Critical plaudits and elite approval on the other hand (like the
Pulitzers)
> gravitated towards "dark" work in all the arts throughout the 20th
century,
> but especially after the war. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it
> does put artists who work in a sunnier vein at a disadvantage. If Mozart
> were alive today, elite opinion would probably write him off as a
> lightweight ... not dark enough to be a serious composer.
What is this obsession you have with denigrating "dark" works. But OK, lets
play your juvenile game for the time being:
Since we are talking about musical theatre, what examples do you have to
support this theory of yours? As far as I know, these are the musicals that
have won Pulitzer Prizes in the past fifty years:
1950 - SOUTH PACIFIC
1960 - FIORELLO
1962- HOW TO SUCCEED IN BUSINESS
1976 - A CHORUS LINE
1985 - SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE
1996 - RENT
So, please, show me the darkness and the nihilism.
Oh, and while we're at it, here are a few of the dark, depressing,
death-obsessed non-musicals that have won the Pulitzer for drama in the past
20 years. (BTW, Steve, there is a big difference between dealing with themes
of darkness and death, and reveling and/or celebrating those same themes; I
defy you to show me one such instance in the list below):
1980 Tally's Folly by Lanford Wilson
1981 Crimes of the Heart by Beth Henley
1982 A Soldier's Play by Charles Fuller
1983 'Night, Mother by Marsha Norman
1984 Glengarry Glen Ross by David Mamet
1987 Fences by August Wilson
1988 Driving Miss Daisy by Alfred Uhry
1989 The Heidi Chronicles by Wendy Wasserstein
1990 The Piano Lesson by August Wilson
1991 Lost in Yonkers by Neil Simon
1992 The Kentucky Cycle by Robert Schenkkan
1993 Angels in America: Millennium Approaches by Tony Kushner
1994 Three Tall Women by Edward Albee
1995 The Young Man From Atlanta by Horton Foote
1998 How I Learned to Drive by Paula Vogel
1999 Wit by Margaret Edson
2000 Dinner With Friends by Donald Margulies
>
> Once again, please read before you rant. Or find someone better
acquainted
> with English prose who can explain my -posts to you -- :-}
I think I would rather find someone better acquainted with American culture
to discuss these things with. As usual, Steve, you are simply full of shit.
Frederick
"Stephen Oles" wrote:
> >
> > Nihilism is not just shock tactics, it can be a very real expression of
> where the human mind and soul can sometimes go.
>
> Agreed! The nihilism of KING LEAR, or the novels of Nathaneal West, is as
> horrifying as it is right on the money. This is how life looks to us in
our
> bleakest moments.
>
> But *cheap* nihilism is no more worthwhile than cheap sentimentality.
That
> was the point I meant to make.
Man, Steve, you are the undisputed champion in backtracking and wimping out.
If that was the point you MEANT to make, you really made a shambles of it,
because what you wrote is: "Darkness is the central cliché in ALL the arts
from 1945-1999, and it goes on and on. From the hit movie SEVEN, to the
morbid crap showcased in the "Sensation" show, to artists in all forms
gravitating automatically to grim subjects, the arts have become as wedded
to shallow ugliness as Hallmark cards are to shallow prettiness."
So you use two examples to prove your thesis, and when people point out to
you the overwhelming amount of art, both by popular and critical consensus,
that does not fit into your neat little categorization, you get all whiny
and say that people don't know how to read your posts. Maybe if you would
learn how to ARTICULATE your meaning a bit better, you wouldn't be so
woefully misunderstood.
What a whiner.
Matthew Murray
> Didn't see Wild Party but from listening to the disc, I'm not at all surprised
> it doesn't last. Ultimately, for a musical to survive on Broadway, it has to
> appeal to a wide audience.
I loved the show, personally, and thought it was magnificent when
I saw it in the theater the first time (knowing nothing about it
whatsoever). But I agree with the bulk of your post, and have said before
that the show had no real target audience. It was also almost entirely
unmarketable. It didn't fall into any one particular category--it kept
jumping back and forth between musical comedy, musical tragedy, vaudeville
pastiche musical, modern musical, post-modern musical, and traditional
multi-star vehicle (I'm sure I even missed a few). I also did not find
the show inacessible at all, but it did require some sort of a commitment
from its audiences, and if the audiences go in expecting one kind of show
and they get an entirely different kind, yeah, the word of mouth probably
ain't going to be that great.
===============================================================================
Matthew A. Murray - mmu...@cc.wwu.edu - http://www.wwu.edu/~mmurray
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A critical history of computer gaming: | "I'm up among the stars, on earthly
Over 195 computer game reviews, covering | things I frown, I'm throwing off the
games from 1977 to the present! | bars that held me down... Who could
| ask for anything more?"
http://www.wwu.edu/~mmurray/Reviews.html | --The Gershwins, from Crazy for You
===============================================================================
Carolyn Marie
> "Frederick" wrote:
>
> >Perhaps Stephen would prefer to live in a world where the only art
> > hanging in our museums are Norman Rockwell kids and dogs playing poker.
>
> Thanks, Frederick. I can always count on you for a snide, idiotic attack
> which has nothing to with anything I posted. Dogs playing poker ... please.
>
They're....DOGS...and they're...PLAYING POKER!!
Auuugh!! Arrrgh!! Ha ha ha ha ha! Woo hoo! <runs away gibbering>
And BTW, Frederick is an idiot.
Carolyn
Will quote obscure SIMPSONS references for food
Matthew Murray
> "Matthew Murray" wrote:
>
> [The Wild Party] didn't fall into any one particular category--it kept
> > jumping back and forth between musical comedy, musical tragedy, vaudeville
> pastiche musical, modern musical, post-modern musical, and traditional
> multi-star vehicle [...]
>
> Hm ... interesting observation. Reminds me of the problems they had with
> FORUM, making an opening number that would properly prepare the audience for
> what was to follow.
But, you see, that's the funny thing--I thought The Wild Party did
just that. Everything that happens in the opening number, musically and
dramatically, DOES set up what's to follow. So that wasn't the show's
problem. I honestly don't know what the problem was--I really thought it
was a great show, and I can't believe it wouldn't get positive word of
mouth. Maybe I've just been immersing myself in theatre to such a degree
that I'm not really capable of determining what is and isn't acceptable to
general audiences anymore... I don't know.
> There's so much to tinker with and get right in a musical ... it's amazing
> any of them ever succeed!
That, however, is absolutely true.
Matthew Murray
> Stephen Oles wrote:
>
> > "Frederick" wrote:
> >
> > >Perhaps Stephen would prefer to live in a world where the only art
> > > hanging in our museums are Norman Rockwell kids and dogs playing poker.
> >
> > Thanks, Frederick. I can always count on you for a snide, idiotic attack
> > which has nothing to with anything I posted. Dogs playing poker ... please.
> >
>
> They're....DOGS...and they're...PLAYING POKER!!
>
> Auuugh!! Arrrgh!! Ha ha ha ha ha! Woo hoo! <runs away gibbering>
There was a story to go with that picture, but it was too intense.
Instead, Randy Newman just threw something together with vampires. Enjoy!
Brenda
Mike Benedetto wrote:
> >From: "Stephen Oles" mister...@earthlink.net
> >Date: 06/29/2000 3:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>
> >But I would say LES MISERABLES is the *best* example of a "dark" musical
> >that really works ... really connects with today's audiences. The darkness
> >of LES MIS engages an audience's mind and emotions. When darkness merely
> >distances and repells, I don't think it's being effective.
>
> I think LM is manipulative, pretentious and generally a pack of lies. It
> promises insights it never delivers, but manages to distract its audience with
> attractive music and a remarkable physical production. We can't help but care
> about the horrible life Fantine leads, but when she dies within a few minutes
> of our meeting her, why should we continue to care? Why should we begin to care
> about the shallow relationship between Marius and Cosette? Why does Eponine
> love Marius -- has a life with the Thernardiers given her premature dementia?
> Why should we be moved by Valjean's sacrifices when they ultimately mean
> nothing? (That is, every time he risks being exposed, he remains free and
> wealthy.)
>
> We may be veering from the point of this thread here... but I would love it if
> someone who likes that show could explain to me exactly what's profound about
> it.
What LES MIS really is about is Jean Valjean's salvation. He moves from being an
embittered old con to become a good person. That's always going to be a popular
theme. And it's quite a positive one. That practically everyone else on stage
dies a messy death is only mildly relevant. Valjean's true antithesis is Javert,
who is too rigid to admit he's wrong and thus perishes in his sins.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough, author of DOORS OF DEATH AND LIFE
From Tor Books in May 2000
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
Alison Franck
>I wish the PARADE tour would come to Los Angeles! All we're
getting this
>summer is THE DEAD and the Democratic convention. How will I
know which is
>which?
>
>-- Steve in VB
Now...that's funny!!!
Alison
Stephen Oles
relationship, Frederick? Do you know what it's like to kiss such
smouldering lips? Do you wanna find out? :-}
Cheers,
Steve in VB
"Frederick" <rasho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e0x6tAi4$GA.462@cpmsnbbsa08...
Stephen Oles
[The Wild Party] didn't fall into any one particular category--it kept
> jumping back and forth between musical comedy, musical tragedy, vaudeville
pastiche musical, modern musical, post-modern musical, and traditional
multi-star vehicle [...]
Hm ... interesting observation. Reminds me of the problems they had with
FORUM, making an opening number that would properly prepare the audience for
what was to follow.
There's so much to tinker with and get right in a musical ... it's amazing
any of them ever succeed!
-- Steve in VB
Stephen Oles
> As usual, Steve, you are simply full of shit.
That's me, the cloaca maxima of RATM!
-- Steve in VB
Stephen Oles
single work created in every form. Your misreading of this simple
declarative sentence appears to be the basis for all your attacks on me in
this thread. Lighten up.
Maybe a tape program called "Verbal Advantage" would help you. It's heavily
advertised on the radio, maybe even on Michael Medved's show. (I wouldn't
know, since I don't think his program airs in Los Angeles.)
-- Steve in VB
Stephen Oles
>I will just note that "Life
> sucks" is as much of a cliche as "Life is good," and that
> bleak messages can lie to us just as adroitly as cheerful
> messages.
That's all I have been trying to say in this thread! Thanks for stating the
point so clearly ... that a "dark" work can be every bit as big a crock as a
"light" one. That's all.
-- Steve in VB
Karen Horn
:
: So then why do create a "straw man" argument, and out of all of the movies
: you could have possibly chosen, you use SEVEN (for some bizarre reason) to
: prove your thesis. Why not use AMERICAN BEAUTY or THE ICE STORM as examples,
: both profound films with a lot more on their minds than the sensationalism
: that you seem to want to take SEVEN to task for? What about all of the
: "dark" even nihilistic films of Bunuel, Bergman, Wilder, Kurosawa that were
: created during the past fifty years. Choosing SEVEN as your representative
: film is like choosing a penny dreadful serial by some long forgotten writer
: over the works of Dickens. Play fair.
Actually for all the hype about AMERICAN BEAUTY I found it in many respects
shallow and predictable. For instance, the redneck colonel....is hollyweird
remotely aware that when you show a character like that *spoiler alert*
that he's going to be the bad guy? yes, yes, it was beautifully filmed,
well directed...but I found the story line very dreary and tiresome overall.
Karen
:
:
:
Stephen Oles
summer is THE DEAD and the Democratic convention. How will I know which is
which?
-- Steve in VB
"Brooke Pierce" <brp...@is.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:395BD6AB...@is.nyu.edu...
Karen Horn
:
:>
:> >Perhaps Stephen would prefer to live in a world where the only art
:> > hanging in our museums are Norman Rockwell kids and dogs playing poker.
:>
:> Thanks, Frederick. I can always count on you for a snide, idiotic attack
:> which has nothing to with anything I posted. Dogs playing poker ...
:
: So what else is one to think when you encapsulate the past fifty years of
: art into one controversial, and undoubtedly non-representative show, which,
: from all evidence, you have scant knowledge of anyway. What happened to the
: gratuitous swipes at Serrano? Not hanging out with Guiliani enough this
: week?
Forget Guiliani...I want one of those pictures of dogs playing poker.
Everyone sneers at them, but I want one!
I especially want one if it was painted by Rockwell...Norman, not Lincoln.
Karen
Carolyn Marie
> "Stephen Oles" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >I wish the PARADE tour would come to Los Angeles! All we're
> getting this
> >summer is THE DEAD and the Democratic convention. How will I
> know which is
> >which?
> >
> >-- Steve in VB
>
> Now...that's funny!!!
>
> Alison
>
Yes it is. But, sheesh, Steve, it's easy!
One event has cheerful ethnics celebrating family values and putting on
little songs and speeches for each other. Also, a tall, dark, taciturn
figure will be observing and participating but nevertheless will have a
certain melancholy loneliness to him. A noisy and pathetic drunk will
make everybody uncomfortable, and people will say a few things that they
regret later. The rights of the people will be championed by an
impassioned female. Everybody will suck up to the old people.
Where's the confusion?
Carolyn
Carolyn Marie
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Carolyn Marie wrote:
>
> > Stephen Oles wrote:
> >
> > > "Frederick" wrote:
> > >
> > > >Perhaps Stephen would prefer to live in a world where the only art
> > > > hanging in our museums are Norman Rockwell kids and dogs playing poker.
> > >
> > > Thanks, Frederick. I can always count on you for a snide, idiotic attack
> > > which has nothing to with anything I posted. Dogs playing poker ... please.
> > >
> >
> > They're....DOGS...and they're...PLAYING POKER!!
> >
> > Auuugh!! Arrrgh!! Ha ha ha ha ha! Woo hoo! <runs away gibbering>
>
> There was a story to go with that picture, but it was too intense.
> Instead, Randy Newman just threw something together with vampires. Enjoy!
>
LOL!
As usual, he's one step ahead:
"Last night I had a dream
And I was in it and you were in it with me...
Saw a vampire,
Saw a ghost,
And they all scared me,
But you scared me the most."
- "Last Night I Had a Dream", from SAIL AWAY, released 1972
Carolyn
Mike Benedetto
>Date: 06/29/2000 11:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>What LES MIS really is about is Jean Valjean's salvation. He moves from
>being an embittered old con to become a good person. That's always going to
be a
>popular theme. And it's quite a positive one. That practically everyone else
on
>stage dies a messy death is only mildly relevant. Valjean's true antithesis
is
>Javert, who is too rigid to admit he's wrong and thus perishes in his sins.
Fine. Then why isn't the show over in twenty minutes, at the end of "Who Am I?"
Valjean doesn't have that far to go -- he's a good person turned bitter at the
beginning, his life is turned around by the intervention of the bishop, and he
bravely reveals his secret when someone is arrested in his place. If the show
is about his salvation, what need is there for anything beyond that?
If a chastened but stubborn Javert had dragged a resigned Valjean back to
prison at the end, the show might have succeeded as the study of Valjean's
attempts to avoid his fate, and ultimate discovery that he has something worth
protecting. But we don't get that satisfaction, because Javert promptly commits
suicide and obviates any responsibility of Valjean's. And *then* Valjean dies,
denying us the happy ending that's within reach at that point. We get a
bittersweet ending, but it's the *wrong* bittersweet ending -- there's no sense
of dramatic necessity to it.
I don't get the impression that any character learns anything useful in the
entire course of the show. They all just *die*. And death is not interesting
unto itself.
-Mike
"In this world, it's dog eat dog. And vice versa!"
-Maude
Tim Gowen
Benedetto <epent...@aol.com> writes
>We may be veering from the point of this thread here... but I would love it if
>someone who likes that show could explain to me exactly what's profound about
>it.
Les Miz is a long show which has survived for ages, and for some reason
people think it's tried to set itself up as something grandiose. I
think this is why people who don't like it have become increasingly
irritated with its survival. Javert kills himself because he cannot
live in a world where he's wrong and 'people like Valjean' are right.
Valjean becomes the semi-saint that he's portrayed to be because once
he's been bought by the Bishop he quickly forgets what it's like to be
in Fantine's position, and casually chucks her out on the street. I've
said and done things which have probably long been forgotten by all, but
which still consume me with guilt. Nothing you'd lock me up for, but
sometimes the inability to forget is the worst torment and the best way
to create someone who's thoughtful and well-rounded. So I've no problem
with Valjean in this musical.
So it's not a complex story but it's obviously very touching to some -
while others don't get the same thing from it. We're all different, and
I'm not one of these people who goes to the same show over and again.
I've only seen it twice, and am about ready for trip number three.
Tim
--
+ "I didn't get the money and I didn't get the girl. Pretty, isn't it?"
+ The RATM FAQ: http://www.juglans.demon.co.uk/
Brenda
Mike Benedetto wrote:
> >From: Brenda clo...@erols.com
> >Date: 06/29/2000 11:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>
> >What LES MIS really is about is Jean Valjean's salvation. He moves from
> >being an embittered old con to become a good person. That's always going to
> be a
> >popular theme. And it's quite a positive one. That practically everyone else
> on
> >stage dies a messy death is only mildly relevant. Valjean's true antithesis
> is
> >Javert, who is too rigid to admit he's wrong and thus perishes in his sins.
>
> Fine. Then why isn't the show over in twenty minutes, at the end of "Who Am I?"
> Valjean doesn't have that far to go -- he's a good person turned bitter at the
> beginning, his life is turned around by the intervention of the bishop, and he
> bravely reveals his secret when someone is arrested in his place. If the show
> is about his salvation, what need is there for anything beyond that?
>
Because it's not over until Valjean is dead and punches his ticket at the Pearly
Gates. (Which is why, although it wasn't in the novel, it was right that Fantine
and Eponine turn up to help haul Valjean to Heaven. Although you do wonder whether
he isn't bemused by the appearance of a totally unfamiliar woman in white singing
soprano at his deathbed -- he never really met Eponine during life.) It's not
particularly interesting or even believable to see an old convict convert and
promise to do better. But to really do it, over the course of 20-some years, that
is heroic.
Frederick
"Karen Horn" wrote:
> :>
> > : So what else is one to think when you encapsulate the past fifty years
of
> : art into one controversial, and undoubtedly non-representative show,
which,
> : from all evidence, you have scant knowledge of anyway. What happened to
the
> : gratuitous swipes at Serrano? Not hanging out with Guiliani enough this
> : week?
> :
>
> Forget Guiliani...I want one of those pictures of dogs playing poker.
> Everyone sneers at them, but I want one!
>
> I especially want one if it was painted by Rockwell...Norman, not Lincoln.
>
I think if you found one painted by Lincoln Rockwell it would be worth more.
Frederick
"Stephen Oles" :
> Frederick, the phrase "all the arts" means all the art *forms* ... not
every
> single work created in every form. Your misreading of this simple
> declarative sentence appears to be the basis for all your attacks on me in
> this thread. Lighten up.
LOL. More backtracking. I find it interesting that you are unable to cite a
SINGLE example from the list of Pulitzer Prize winning dramas from the past
50 YEARS that support your extremely hollow and empty thesis. But lets recap
for everybody:
1. Steve wrote: "Darkness is the central cliche in all the arts from
1945-1999, and it goes
on and on. From the hit movie SEVEN, to the morbid crap showcased in the
"Sensation" show, to artists in all forms gravitating automatically to grim
subjects, the arts have become as wedded to shallow ugliness as Hallmark
cards are to shallow prettiness."
2. Steve wrote: "Critical plaudits and elite approval on the other hand
(like the Pulitzers)
gravitated towards "dark" work in all the arts throughout the 20th century,
but especially after the war. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it
does put artists who work in a sunnier vein at a disadvantage. If Mozart
were alive today, elite opinion would probably write him off as a
lightweight ... not dark enough to be a serious composer."
3. Steve wrote: "Dark themes -- even nihilism -- have appeared in
masterpieces from the
beginning. But the profoundly searching and humane darkness of KING LEAR
or THE ORESTEIA is a far cry from trite cynicism, which is what I was trying
to criticize."
So, now, we add up all of these elements, and what have we gotten so far? An
indictment from Steve of: 1) the film SEVEN; 2) the film BLUE VELVET; 3) a
single art exhibition;
So, I will post all of the Pulitzer Prize winning dramas from the past fifty
years, and ask Stephen, YET AGAIN, to cite ten, five, two, christ, just ONE
example that could possibly justify the nonsense that he is spewing. Of
course it is an exercise in futility, because anytime anyone confronts
Stephen directly with such a query, they are immediately rebuffed and told
that he will not answer them until they start acting like an "adult." Which,
of course, is more of his intellectual dishonesty and cowardice. But, on the
off chance that he feels up to the challenge, here is the list:
1948 A Streetcar Named Desire by Tennessee Williams
1949 Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
1950 South Pacific by Richard Rodgers, Oscar Hammerstein, 2nd and Joshua
Logan
1951 (No Award)
1952 The Shrike by Joseph Kramm
1953 Picnic by William Inge
1954 The Teahouse of the August Moon by John Patrick
1955 Cat on A Hot Tin Roof by Tennessee Williams
1956 Diary of Anne Frank by Albert Hackett and Frances Goodrich
1957 Long Day's Journey Into Night by Eugene O'Neill
1958 Look Homeward, Angel by Ketti Frings
1959 J. B. by Archibald Macleish
1960 Fiorello! by Book by Jerome Weidman and George Abbott, Music By Jerry
Bock and Lyrics by Sheldon Harnick
1961 All The Way Home by Tad Mosel
1962 How To Succeed In Business Without Really Trying by Frank Loesser and
Abe Burrows
1963 (No Award)
1964 (No Award)
1965 The Subject Was Roses by Frank D. Gilroy
1966 (No Award)
1967 A Delicate Balance by Edward Albee
1968 (No Award)
1969 The Great White Hope by Howard Sackler
1970 No Place To Be Somebody by Charles Gordone
1971 The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-In-The-Moon Marigolds by Paul Zindel
1972 (No Award)
1973 That Championship Season by Jason Miller
1974 (No Award)
1975 Seascape by Edward Albee
1976 A Chorus Line by Conceived, choreographed and directed by Michael
Bennett, with book by James Kirkwood and Nicholas Dante, music by Marvin
Hamlisch, and lyrics by Edward Kleban
1977 The Shadow Box by Michael Cristofer
1978 The Gin Game by Donald L. Coburn
1979 Buried Child by Sam Shepard
1980 Talley's Folly by Lanford Wilson
1981 Crimes of the Heart by Beth Henley
1982 A Soldier's Play by Charles Fuller
1983 'Night, Mother by Marsha Norman
1984 Glengarry Glen Ross by David Mamet
1985 Sunday in the Park With George by Music and lyrics by Stephen Sondheim,
book by James Lapine
1986 (No Award)
1987 Fences by August Wilson
1988 Driving Miss Daisy by Alfred Uhry
1989 The Heidi Chronicles by Wendy Wasserstein
1990 The Piano Lesson by August Wilson
1991 Lost in Yonkers by Neil Simon
1992 The Kentucky Cycle by Robert Schenkkan
1993 Angels in America: Millennium Approaches by Tony Kushner
1994 Three Tall Women by Edward Albee
1995 The Young Man From Atlanta by Horton Foote
1996 Rent by the late Jonathan Larson
1997 (No Award)
1998 How I Learned to Drive by Paula Vogel
1999 Wit by Margaret Edson
2000 Dinner With Friends by Donald Margulies
Have a great day.
Frederick
"Carolyn Marie" wrote:
>
> They're....DOGS...and they're...PLAYING POKER!!
>
> Auuugh!! Arrrgh!! Ha ha ha ha ha! Woo hoo! <runs away gibbering>
>
>
Thanks Carolyn. Given the high intellectual qualities of your posts, I take
this as the highest form of praise.
(nothing against the Simpsons, by the way, its a great show; unfortunately,
you don't seem to understand the satire contained within it).
Nicole Delessert Shields
> What LES MIS really is about is Jean Valjean's salvation. He moves from being an
> embittered old con to become a good person.
Except it happens in the very beginning of the musical... when the Bishop
gives him the silver.
-Nicole
Nicole Delessert Shields
> Fine. Then why isn't the show over in twenty minutes, at the end of "Who Am I?"
> Valjean doesn't have that far to go -- he's a good person turned bitter at the
> beginning, his life is turned around by the intervention of the bishop, and he
> bravely reveals his secret when someone is arrested in his place. If the show
> is about his salvation, what need is there for anything beyond that?
I think it's a little more interesting to draw a parallel between Jean
Valjean and Thenardier. Here you have two characters who are dishonest in
attempts to feed their families. What makes Jean Valjean the good guy, and
Thenardier the bad guy in the end? And how do their circumstances affect
their daughters? Both men play out their lives pretending to be someone
they are not in order to survive. Thenardier cons people in various ways,
Jean Valjean assumes various personalities in order to escape Javert. One
thing that is interesting is that Valjean remains wealthy, and Thenardier
is poor. Does this affect our judgement of them in anyway?
And how do the circumstances of the fathers affect Cosette and Eponine?
-Nicole
Noel Katz
important theme was sounded when Mike wrote:
>>They all just *die*. And death is not interesting unto itself.
In too many musicals of the 80's and 90's, characters die and this is supposed
to cause a great sense of loss and sadness in the audience. I often feel that
the musical dramatist has failed to do his job, and so must move us the
cheapest way possible. Meet Angel, kindly drag queen. Now he's dead; now we
cry. Please! The most annoying example is the dead-at-rise Lily in Secret
Garden, who is mourned and mooned over ad absurdum until she appears as a ghost
and basically says "Get over it!" at which point the character does. Huh?
There are plenty of deaths in good musicals - The King of Siam, Billy Bigelow,
Fiorello's first wife, but these are fully dramatized and we understand the
consequences for other characters, as well as the plots of the shows, more
fully.
I may be hopelessly out of step, but when young fans of recent musicals tell me
they were moved when Fantine (whose dream "that God would be forgiving" has
been dashed) dies, they sound like pushovers.
(Is that the word I want, "pushovers"? Maybe I mean "popovers" - delicious
flaky crust, but full of air.)
Stephen Oles
and good works -- is about as unmodern as one can get, yet the story has
touched readers and audiences for 150 years. It's a universal theme with
good characters, a good villain, lots of action and reversals, an
interesting historical backdrop, a political context, a religious context
...
Getting all that in one story is refreshing, compared to a new story like
SIDE SHOW which, even with its strong score, revolves around the tiresomely
trivial question of "How and when will these babes get laid?"
-- Steve in VB
"Tim Gowen" <t...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sktV$GB9jF...@equipoise.demon.co.uk...
Doc Bender
>important theme was sounded when Mike wrote:
>>>They all just *die*. And death is not interesting unto itself.
>
>In too many musicals of the 80's and 90's, characters die and this is
>supposed
>to cause a great sense of loss and sadness in the audience.
I think that characters die in drama because it is inevitable in life. As
Socrates said, the entire study of philosophy is the study of death. By
witnessing the deaths of others, we can come to terms with our own mortality.
And you're making the assumption that death is necessarily a tragic event,
whereas in Les Mis, JVJ's death is anything but.
I often feel
>that
>the musical dramatist has failed to do his job, and so must move us the
>cheapest way possible. Meet Angel, kindly drag queen. Now he's dead; now we
>cry. Please! The most annoying example is the dead-at-rise Lily in Secret
>Garden, who is mourned and mooned over ad absurdum until she appears as a
>ghost
>and basically says "Get over it!" at which point the character does. Huh?
But doesn't the same thing happen in Carousel?
>There are plenty of deaths in good musicals - The King of Siam, Billy
>Bigelow,
>Fiorello's first wife, but these are fully dramatized and we understand the
>consequences for other characters, as well as the plots of the shows, more
>fully.
See above.
>I may be hopelessly out of step, but when young fans of recent musicals tell
>me
>they were moved when Fantine (whose dream "that God would be forgiving" has
>been dashed) dies, they sound like pushovers.
>(Is that the word I want, "pushovers"? Maybe I mean "popovers" - delicious
>flaky crust, but full of air.)
I think everyone deals with death in their own way. If some are moved by her
death (melodramatic as it may be), who are you to say that their feelings are
invalid?
Doc Bender
Stephen Oles
Pulitzer winners, nearly all of which are grim and dark. From a musical
where everyone's dying of AIDS (RENT) to a masterpiece about an aging whore
who is raped, loses her mind, and is dragged off to the looney bin
(STREETCAR) to Albee's enigmatically morbid DELICATE BALANCE ... Lord, where
do I begin?
BURIED CHILD: Insane family, murdered infant.
THAT CHAMPIONSHIP SEASON: lies, betrayal, suicide
NIGHT, MOTHER: depressed woman threatens suicide for 90 minutes, then does
it. One of the most pointlessly morbid plays ever staged.
SHADOW BOX: How 'bout a play where ALL the characters are dying of cancer!
SUBJECT WAS ROSES, PICNIC, LOOK HOMEWARD ANGEL, GAMMA RAYS: some of
darkest, most depressing plays written in the 20th century.
LONG DAY'S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT: terminal illness, heroin addiction
DEATH OF A SALEMAN: a real laff riot
No need for me to point out how exceptional the non-grim shows, like HOW TO
SUCCEED, are on your list. A CHORUS LINE was extremely dark for its time.
Even SOUTH PACIFIC and FIORELLO have elements of tragedy and dark themes
like racial prejudice.
Thanks again for your help!
-- Steve in VB
"Frederick" <rasho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OUkfP6q4$GA.462@cpmsnbbsa08...
Carolyn Marie
> "Carolyn Marie" wrote:
> >
> > They're....DOGS...and they're...PLAYING POKER!!
> >
> > Auuugh!! Arrrgh!! Ha ha ha ha ha! Woo hoo! <runs away gibbering>
> >
> > And BTW, Frederick is an idiot.
> >
>
> Thanks Carolyn. Given the high intellectual qualities of your posts, I take
> this as the highest form of praise.
"Something was said...not good..."
>
> (nothing against the Simpsons, by the way, its a great show; unfortunately,
> you don't seem to understand the satire contained within it).
Isn't it a documentary?
Carolyn
Brenda
Nicole Delessert Shields wrote:
But that's just the beginning. Valjean has to put it into action: walk the walk as
well as talking the talk.
JCTravis
> Valjean and Thenardier. Here you have two characters who are dishonest in
> attempts to feed their families. What makes Jean Valjean the good guy, and
> Thenardier the bad guy in the end? And how do their circumstances affect
> their daughters? Both men play out their lives pretending to be someone
> they are not in order to survive. Thenardier cons people in various ways,
> Jean Valjean assumes various personalities in order to escape Javert. One
> thing that is interesting is that Valjean remains wealthy, and Thenardier
> is poor. Does this affect our judgement of them in anyway?
The difference in my opinion is that Thenardier is feeding *himself* and
will do it in any way possible, while Valjean learns through the Bishop that
giving away something you can spare but will help another is the correct way
(reflected in the lyric "To love another person is to see the face of God.")
Javert simply cannot deal with the idea that he's wasted so much time on
someone who has "reformed" and thereby cosmically negating his existence. I
find it interesting (it's glossed over a bit) that Valjean feels responsible
for his factory workers in providing them work and money and a way off the
street. Fantine becomes a bit of a microcosm of all of them, therefore
Valjean's need to care for her daughter when she dies.
> And how do the circumstances of the fathers affect Cosette and Eponine?
Isn't Eponine doted on when she's young? I'm not quite sure I understand
what goes wrong with her.
Stephen Farrow
>
> The theme of LES MIS -- an individual's personal redemption through faith
> and good works -- is about as unmodern as one can get, yet the story has
> touched readers and audiences for 150 years. It's a universal theme with
> good characters, a good villain, lots of action and reversals, an
> interesting historical backdrop, a political context, a religious context
> ...
>
> Getting all that in one story is refreshing, compared to a new story like
> SIDE SHOW which, even with its strong score, revolves around the tiresomely
> trivial question of "How and when will these babes get laid?"
Maybe - but in "Side Show", the *how* is a good deal more interesting
than the when!
Stephen
--
Will men ever get pregnant? And if they do, will they opt for
shoulder-tie dungarees, or play safe with Peter Pan collar-type loose
smocks? Whatever they decide, there's bound to be a documentary about
it. And possibly a tea towel.
- Victoria Wood
Karen Horn
:
Probably so!!!! And especially if one of the dogs is showing
5 aces.
Karen
Frederick
"Carolyn Marie" wrote:
> > >
> > (nothing against the Simpsons, by the way, its a great show;
unfortunately,
> > you don't seem to understand the satire contained within it).
>
> Isn't it a documentary?
>
Alas, Carolyn, for some people, indeed it is....
Frederick
"Stephen Oles" wrote:
> Thanks, Frederick, for making my point for me with your exhaustive list of
> Pulitzer winners, nearly all of which are grim and dark.
We must have severely different definitions of "grim" and "dark." Certainly
most of the DRAMAS are serious, but if you believe that most, some, or even
ANY of the plays fits your original statement, then we obviously inhabit
different cultural universes.
> From a musical
> where everyone's dying of AIDS (RENT)
Are you claiming that RENT is merely relentlessly grim and nihilistic.
Funny, I found it very life-affirming. So do most people who don't have an
agenda.
> to a masterpiece about an aging whore
> who is raped, loses her mind, and is dragged off to the looney bin
> (STREETCAR)
I see...we are merely going to give Cliff Notes summaries of great works of
art in order to prove our point, eh Steve?
> to Albee's enigmatically morbid DELICATE BALANCE ... Lord, where
> do I begin?
You can begin by arguing honestly, rather than creating the straw man
argument and following it on automatic drive.
>
> BURIED CHILD: Insane family, murdered infant.
This is tiresome.
>
> THAT CHAMPIONSHIP SEASON: lies, betrayal, suicide
Yeah, like every play Shakespeare ever wrote. Christ, doesn't it even
embarrass you to argue like this.
>
> NIGHT, MOTHER: depressed woman threatens suicide for 90 minutes, then
does
> it. One of the most pointlessly morbid plays ever staged.
You sound like all of those blue-noses that attacked Dostoevsky's works.
There is nothing MORBID about NIGHT MOTHER except what YOU bring into the
theatre, friend.
> SHADOW BOX: How 'bout a play where ALL the characters are dying of
cancer!
Oh, Steve, this is so silly. As if works of art about dying can't be life
affirming.
> SUBJECT WAS ROSES, PICNIC, LOOK HOMEWARD ANGEL, GAMMA RAYS: some of
> darkest, most depressing plays written in the 20th century.
LOL...OK, Steve, I get it...you are doing an impersonation of a right wing c
ultural conservative critic. I get it now....its not really funny, but I get
it.
> LONG DAY'S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT: terminal illness, heroin addiction
I'm beginning to think you REALLY do want all art to resemble dogs playing
poker.
> DEATH OF A SALEMAN: a real laff riot
You're losing steam fast buddy.
> No need for me to point out how exceptional the non-grim shows, like HOW
TO
> SUCCEED, are on your list. A CHORUS LINE was extremely dark for its time.
DARK??? Why, because one of the characters sprained his ankle....ROFLMAO. Or
would you have simply given the pulitzer to some brainless light airy
musical?
> Even SOUTH PACIFIC and FIORELLO have elements of tragedy and dark themes
> like racial prejudice.
Do you realize how stupid this argument is. It has nothing to do with your
original post. Works with serious, even tragic themes, have nothing to do
with what you were complaining about, does it? Or is your point that Neil
Simon plays should automatically win the Pulitzer every year?
> Thanks again for your help!
>
Anytime, Steve, but I dont think I can give you the kind of help you truly
need.
Stephen Oles
elementary point is awesome. No one ever said DARK was BAD. My own taste
runs heavily towards dark material.
To recap: you listed Pulitzer winners and said they weren't dark. I pointed
out that most of them were. Now you spin 180 degrees and claim I was
attacking these works. (Guess that's why I refer to plays as
"masterpieces", because I think they stink, right?)
Well, it's my fault for trying to hold a serious conversation with you.
It's not like I didn't know what to expect ...
-- Steve in VB
Frederick
"Stephen Oles" wrote:
> Frederick, your ability to misquote, misunderstand, and miss the most
> elementary point is awesome. No one ever said DARK was BAD. My own
taste
> runs heavily towards dark material.
>
> To recap: you listed Pulitzer winners and said they weren't dark.
Never said that, Steve. I said that none of them fit into the description
that started off this whole thread, i.e., cynical, nihilistic, cheap
sensationalism...try to follow the thread.
> I pointed
> out that most of them were. Now you spin 180 degrees and claim I was
> attacking these works. (Guess that's why I refer to plays as
> "masterpieces", because I think they stink, right?)
Stephen, be honest with yourself, and go back and read your original post,
and your attack on critics who embrace the kinds of works you were
criticizing. Man, you are one dishoneste dude.
>
> Well, it's my fault for trying to hold a serious conversation with you.
> It's not like I didn't know what to expect ...
Serious, maybe. Honest, not from you.
Zorro5280
writes:
>is your point that Neil
>Simon plays should automatically win the Pulitzer every year?
>
THE ODD COUPLE: VERY dark. Felix attmpts suicide because his wife leaves him.
Felix and Oscar spend most of the play fighting.
BAREFOOT IN THE PARK: Also dark. Newly married couple split up; husband reacts
by drinking excessively.
BILOXIE BLUES: Young man faces anti-Semitism in the deep South; slaves under a
sadistic drill sargeant.
LOST IN YONKERS: Mean-spirited old woman makes life a living hell for
high-functioning retarded daughter, who resorts to whoring in her basement, and
son, who joins a life of crime.
Stephen Oles
write:
>I said that none of them fit into [sic] the description
> that started off this whole thread, i.e., cynical, nihilistic, cheap
> sensationalism...
I challenge you to find "the description that started off this whole thread"
in anything I posted. I thought the other poster who called you "an idiot"
was being harsh, but I'm starting to wonder ...
--Steve in VB
"Frederick" <rasho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OuMDjj44$GA.399@cpmsnbbsa08...
Jesse Jones
Stephen Oles wrote:
> Frederick, you've been fighting a straw man through this whole thread. You
> write:
>
> >I said that none of them fit into [sic] the description
> > that started off this whole thread, i.e., cynical, nihilistic, cheap
> > sensationalism...
>
> I challenge you to find "the description that started off this whole thread"
> in anything I posted. I thought the other poster who called you "an idiot"
> was being harsh, but I'm starting to wonder ...
Here we go, Stephen:
Stephen Oles wrote:
> I'm with Jaime. La Chiusa's remarks suggest he's several decades behind the
> zeitgeist. The days when bleak and nihilistic were in themselves refreshing
> are long gone. Have we made no cultural progress in the half century since
> the heyday of Samuel Beckett?
>
> Darkness is the central cliche in all the arts from 1945-1999, and it goes
> on and on. From the hit movie SEVEN, to the morbid crap showcased in the
> "Sensation" show, to artists in all forms gravitating automatically to grim
> subjects, the arts have become as wedded to shallow ugliness as Hallmark
> cards are to shallow prettiness.
>
> This fashionable tendency mars even scores as fine as PARADE and WILD PARTY,
> where sentimental bleakness takes the place of meaningful revelations of
> human character:
>
> "I never knew anything at all."
> "I will never understand ..."
> "Where -- where do we belong?"
>
> This kind of depressive handwringing seems modern to those whose notion of
> modern is -- like Sondheim's -- rooted in mid-20th century nihilism.
>
> Saying everything is crappy is no more *profound* than saying everything is
> peachy. It's just a fashion -- like the wearing of black clothing by urban
> trendies. It's still "in" with critics and academics, but IMO the
> cultivated public has outgrown nihilism.
>
> As late as SWEENEY TODD, audiences were surprised and provoked by bleakness,
> but times change. Today SWEENEY's gang rape scene is about as shocking as
> CAROUSEL's clambake. Audiences are no longer satisfied with fashionable
> bleakness, and it's time for writers to wake up and notice.
>
> Samuel Beckett said it all decades ago: God is dead, life is worthless, and
> people suck. Yadda yadda yadda.
>
> It seems there's a limit to the amount of time and money audiences will
> spend to be told, over and over, that nothing matters. If that's all our
> younger writers have to offer, no wonder audiences are flocking to revivals
> of shows that refuse to fashionably deny the existence of hope, beauty,
> poetry, goodness, altruism, forgiveness, and (god forbid) fun.
>
> -- Steve in VB
>
> "Jaime J. Weinman" <ja...@weinmans.com> wrote in message
> news:084DFA70...@USW-EX0102-016.REMARQ.COM...
> > I wrote:
> >
> > 'LaChiusa . . ."What most of Broadway's audiences really want,"
> > he wrote, "is a nostalgia booster shot," but he can't give them
> > that because "this country's cultural psyche is darker today."'
> >
> > Jesse Jones replied:
> > "Spoken like an artist with integrity."
> >
> > *Like* an artist with integrity, perhaps...except that he's
> > perpetuating a tired, silly stereotype about audiences and an
> > equally tired, silly stereotype about our culture. Such a
> > cliche'd view of the world does not a true artist make.
> >
> > Jaime J. Weinman
> >
Stephen Oles
beyond ANY doubt that I never made the statement Frederick claimed I did.
>the description that started off this whole thread, i.e.
>cynical, nihilistic, cheap sensationalism [...]
Nowhere in any post of mine does this phrase appear, or anything remotely
like it. I love dark work in the theatre when it's good. Like I said, I'm
writing a musical myself about drug dealing and gang rape. Dark enough for
you?
Frederick is simply full of it.
If he spent more time putting food into hungry mouths, and less time putting
silly words into mine, the world would be a better place. Think globally,
act locally.
-- Steve in VB
"Jesse Jones" <jesse...@davisjones.com> wrote in message
news:395E539B...@davisjones.com...
> This is too easy!
Jesse Jones
> Jesse, what are you smoking? Quoting my entire original post, you've proved
> beyond ANY doubt that I never made the statement Frederick claimed I did.
>
> >the description that started off this whole thread, i.e.
> >cynical, nihilistic, cheap sensationalism [...]
>
> Nowhere in any post of mine does this phrase appear, or anything remotely
> like it.
Well, let's see. Let's try one more edit, maybe it will become clear to
you . . . .
> Stephen Oles wrote:
>
> > I'm with Jaime. La Chiusa's remarks suggest he's several decades behind the
>
> > zeitgeist. The days when bleak and nihilistic were in themselves refreshing
>
> > are long gone. . . .
> > . . . to the morbid crap showcased in the "Sensation" show, to artists in
> all forms gravitating automatically to grim
> > subjects, the arts have become as wedded to shallow ugliness as Hallmark
> > cards are to shallow prettiness. . .
>
> > This kind of depressive handwringing seems modern to those whose notion of
> > modern is -- like Sondheim's -- rooted in mid-20th century nihilism. . . .
> >
> > Samuel Beckett said it all decades ago: God is dead, life is worthless, and
> > people suck. Yadda yadda yadda.
> >
It looks to me like Frederick's description is right on target.
Nicole Delessert Shields
On 30 Jun 2000, Noel Katz wrote:
> While I'm a whole lot fonder of Les Miserables than Mr. Benedetto, I think an
> important theme was sounded when Mike wrote:
> >>They all just *die*. And death is not interesting unto itself.
>
> In too many musicals of the 80's and 90's, characters die and this is supposed
> to cause a great sense of loss and sadness in the audience. I often feel that
> the musical dramatist has failed to do his job, and so must move us the
> cheapest way possible.
Well, to be fair, the musical Les Mis WAS based on a book, in which many
of the characters DO die. In fact, LESS of them die on stage than in the
book (For example, Mme Thenardier dies in the book.)
What really annoyed me was the recent movie version with Claire Danes, in
which Jean Valjean DOESN'T die. That sucked!
-Nicole
Nicole Delessert Shields
> > I think it's a little more interesting to draw a parallel between Jean
> > Valjean and Thenardier. Here you have two characters who are dishonest in
> > attempts to feed their families. What makes Jean Valjean the good guy, and
> > Thenardier the bad guy in the end? And how do their circumstances affect
> > their daughters? Both men play out their lives pretending to be someone
> > they are not in order to survive. Thenardier cons people in various ways,
> > Jean Valjean assumes various personalities in order to escape Javert. One
> > thing that is interesting is that Valjean remains wealthy, and Thenardier
> > is poor. Does this affect our judgement of them in anyway?
> The difference in my opinion is that Thenardier is feeding *himself* and
> will do it in any way possible,
He's not just feeding himself, he's feeding his wife and kids as well.
> while Valjean learns through the Bishop that
> giving away something you can spare but will help another is the correct way
Valjean HAS something TO give away. Thenardier, in the beginning, is an
innkeeper, but not an especially wealthy one. Valjean goes from starving
peasant to con to millionaire. While he's a peasant, he steals to feed his
family (much like Thenardier) but once he's a millionaire he can happily
give out largess to the masses and be benevolent. We never see a poor and
generous Valjean, and we never see a rich Thenardier at all.
> (reflected in the lyric "To love another person is to see the face of God.")
> Javert simply cannot deal with the idea that he's wasted so much time on
> someone who has "reformed" and thereby cosmically negating his existence. I
> find it interesting (it's glossed over a bit) that Valjean feels responsible
> for his factory workers in providing them work and money and a way off the
> street. Fantine becomes a bit of a microcosm of all of them, therefore
> Valjean's need to care for her daughter when she dies.
>
> > And how do the circumstances of the fathers affect Cosette and Eponine?
>
> Isn't Eponine doted on when she's young? I'm not quite sure I understand
> what goes wrong with her.
Yeah, when she's young. Then her father uses her to help him steal stuff.
Here's a thought... if Valjean became poor again, would he use Cosette to
help him steal stuff? My thought is: "Yeah, probobly".
-Nicole
Jean Prouvaire
Nicole Delessert Shields wrote:
>
> What really annoyed me was the recent movie version with Claire Danes, in
> which Jean Valjean DOESN'T die. That sucked!
I may be wrong, but I don't believe _any_ of the movies (English
language ones anyway) include the Epilogue where Valjean "banishes"
himself and then dies in the cottage. The musical may be unique in that
respect.
--
Remove "SPAMFREE" from e-mail address to reply.
____________________________________________________________________
Beyond the barricades: Les Miserables news, resources and recordings
http://www.thebarricades.com http://www.thehungersite.com
____________________________________________________________________
Jean Prouvaire
Nicole Delessert Shields wrote:
[snip]
> Valjean HAS something TO give away. Thenardier, in the beginning, is an
> innkeeper, but not an especially wealthy one. Valjean goes from starving
> peasant to con to millionaire. While he's a peasant, he steals to feed his
> family (much like Thenardier) but once he's a millionaire he can happily
> give out largess to the masses and be benevolent. We never see a poor and
> generous Valjean, and we never see a rich Thenardier at all.
Well, he's 1500 francs richer after selling Cosette. :-)
Some interesting thoughts there re the Valjean/Thenardier parallels.
Though one can suppose that the difference is in the attitudes of the
men. Thenardier is always shown to be cheerfully and/or malevolently
immoral when carrying out his actions whereas Valjean presumably knew
the wrongness of his deeds even if he wasn't exactly repentant until he
met the Bishop.
Stephen Oles
Frederick said, you haven't followed the thread. Here's what really
happened (which can be verified by reading the posts in order -- if anyone
has that much time to waste.)
1.) I proposed for discussion the idea that grim and dark material has been
favored by critics and elite opinion in the period 1945-2000. This is
basically self-evident. I know of no serious critic who would disagree with
this notion.
2.) Frederick, confusing the Pulitzers with the Tonys, irrelevently listed
non-grim works which had won Tony Awards. The Tonys are industry awards,
the opposite of "elite opinion". Was it elite opinion that gave John/Rice
the award this year for best score?
3.) Frederick then listed Pulitzer winners. He was clearly unfamiliar with
most of them, since nearly every one he listed was in fact grim ... many are
brilliantly, even thrillingly grim, but grim nonetheless.
4.) Being an actor, playwright, and all-around theatre buff, I have read,
seen, or performed in virtually every Pulitzer winner he listed. Too bad
for Frederick.
5.) Embarrassed, Frederick went postal, called me dishonest, an idiot, a
follower of Michael Medved (huh??) etc. etc.
6.) Totally ignoring what I actually wrote, Frederick claimed I had said
dark work was bad, shouldn't be allowed ... that if I had my way only the
work of Neil Simon and Norman Rockwell would be permitted in this country,
yadda yadda yadda.
This is a common tactic of Freddy's. Losing an argument, he'll suddenly
claim his adversary said something ridiculous and attack that instead. "But
YOU said Hitler was cool and the Holocaust was really neat!" It's difficult
to defend oneself against total fantasy.
Anyone who's tempted to lock horns with Frederick -- think twice and save
yourself the trouble.
-- Steve in VB
"Jesse Jones" <jesse...@davisjones.com> wrote in message
news:395E6940...@davisjones.com...
> Stephen Oles wrote:
>
> > Jesse, what are you smoking? Quoting my entire original post, you've
proved
> > beyond ANY doubt that I never made the statement Frederick claimed I
did.
> >
> > >the description that started off this whole thread, i.e.
> > >cynical, nihilistic, cheap sensationalism [...]
> >
> > Nowhere in any post of mine does this phrase appear, or anything
remotely
> > like it.
>
> Well, let's see. Let's try one more edit, maybe it will become clear
to
> you . . . .
>
>
> > Stephen Oles wrote:
> >
> > > I'm with Jaime. La Chiusa's remarks suggest he's several decades
behind the
> >
> > > zeitgeist. The days when bleak and nihilistic were in themselves
refreshing
> >
> > > are long gone. . . .
>
> > > . . . to the morbid crap showcased in the "Sensation" show, to
artists in
> > all forms gravitating automatically to grim
> > > subjects, the arts have become as wedded to shallow ugliness as
Hallmark
Nicole Delessert Shields
> Well, he's 1500 francs richer after selling Cosette. :-)
>
> Some interesting thoughts there re the Valjean/Thenardier parallels.
> Though one can suppose that the difference is in the attitudes of the
> men. Thenardier is always shown to be cheerfully and/or malevolently
> immoral when carrying out his actions whereas Valjean presumably knew
> the wrongness of his deeds even if he wasn't exactly repentant until he
> met the Bishop.
Interesting how the musical portrays Thenardier as a jolly, almost
loveable Falstaff-like character and uses him for comic relief. I didn't
get that from the book at ALL. In the book he's much more desperate, wry
and sneaky.
-Nicole
Tim Gowen
>> where everyone's dying of AIDS (RENT)
>
>Funny, I found it very life-affirming. So do most people who don't have an
>agenda.
And only people who walk in lockstep with some trendy liberal
bullshitters would accuse those who don't see things their way of having
an agenda. Of course 'Rent' is dark.
Jean Prouvaire
Nicole Delessert Shields wrote:
> Interesting how the musical portrays Thenardier as a jolly, almost
> loveable Falstaff-like character and uses him for comic relief. I didn't
> get that from the book at ALL. In the book he's much more desperate, wry
> and sneaky.
Yeah, the exigencies of the musical theatre form, I guess. Although the
key word in "almost loveable" is "almost". Good thing they added "Dog
Eat Dog" during the development phase.
:-)
Jesse Jones
> Jesse, if you think what you've quoted here has anything to do with what
> Frederick said, you haven't followed the thread. Here's what really
> happened (which can be verified by reading the posts in order -- if anyone
> has that much time to waste.)
It is sad to see any conversation degenerate into name-calling and
bickering. It is especially unfortunate here, IMO, because there remain such
profoundly important issues.
ISTM that since the mid-19th Century, when Freud, Darwin, and Marx turned
everything we knew upside down, our artists (*not* just the "critics and elite")
have struggled to find meaning. Since angst, ennui, and existentialism do not
sell well, entertainment industries have struggled to produce escapist products,
with varying success. But ultimately the artists and the audiences come back to
the deeper questions.
> 1.) I proposed for discussion the idea that grim and dark material has been
> favored by critics and elite opinion in the period 1945-2000. This is
> basically self-evident. I know of no serious critic who would disagree with
> this notion.
And, as the excerpts I quoted show, you were harshly critical of that trend,
wouldn't you agree? Even the description -- "grim and dark" -- and the
attribution to the hated "critics and elite" -- say you are not happy with this
trend -- wouldn't you agree?
> 4.) Being an actor, playwright, and all-around theatre buff, I have read,
> seen, or performed in virtually every Pulitzer winner he listed. Too bad
> for Frederick.
And this advances the thread how?
> 5.) Embarrassed, Frederick went postal, called me dishonest, an idiot, a
> follower of Michael Medved (huh??) etc. etc.
>
> 6.) Totally ignoring what I actually wrote, Frederick claimed I had said
> dark work was bad, shouldn't be allowed ...
The post I quoted clearly suggested to me that you felt this was a bad
trend. Do you disagree (1, that your post said that, and 2, with the
conclusion)?
> This is a common tactic of Freddy's. Losing an argument, he'll suddenly
> claim his adversary said something ridiculous and attack that instead. "But
> YOU said Hitler was cool and the Holocaust was really neat!" It's difficult
> to defend oneself against total fantasy.
>
> Anyone who's tempted to lock horns with Frederick -- think twice and save
> yourself the trouble.
>
> -- Steve in VB
Rather than focus on the ad hominem, can we look at the underlying issue?
>
> "Jesse Jones" <jesse...@davisjones.com> wrote in message
> news:395E6940...@davisjones.com...
> > Stephen Oles wrote:
> >
> > > Jesse, what are you smoking? Quoting my entire original post, you've
> proved
> > > beyond ANY doubt that I never made the statement Frederick claimed I
> did.
> > >
> > > >the description that started off this whole thread, i.e.
> > > >cynical, nihilistic, cheap sensationalism [...]
> > >
> > > Nowhere in any post of mine does this phrase appear, or anything
> remotely
> > > like it.
> >
> > Well, let's see. Let's try one more edit, maybe it will become clear
> to
> > you . . . .
> >
> >
> > > Stephen Oles wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm with Jaime. La Chiusa's remarks suggest he's several decades
> behind the
> > >
> > > > zeitgeist. The days when bleak and nihilistic were in themselves
> refreshing
> > >
> > > > are long gone. . . .
> >
> > > > . . . to the morbid crap showcased in the "Sensation" show, to
> artists in
> > > all forms gravitating automatically to grim
> > > > subjects, the arts have become as wedded to shallow ugliness as
> Hallmark
Jesse Jones
> In article <#GoAvK34$GA.399@cpmsnbbsa08>, Frederick
> <rasho...@hotmail.com> writes
> >> From a musical
> >> where everyone's dying of AIDS (RENT)
> >
> >Are you claiming that RENT is merely relentlessly grim and nihilistic.
> >Funny, I found it very life-affirming. So do most people who don't have an
> >agenda.
>
> And only people who walk in lockstep with some trendy liberal
> bullshitters would accuse those who don't see things their way of having
> an agenda. Of course 'Rent' is dark.
The fault in RENT IMO is that the relentlessly affirming messages -- love
conquers all -- live for today -- do not follow from the story. The story is
one of survival -- a noble, not a dark, story.
orpheusNY
"Stephen Oles" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Jesse, if you think what you've quoted here has anything to do with what
> Frederick said, you haven't followed the thread. Here's what really
> happened (which can be verified by reading the posts in order -- if anyone
> has that much time to waste.)
>
> 1.) I proposed for discussion the idea that grim and dark material has been
> favored by critics and elite opinion in the period 1945-2000. This is
> basically self-evident. I know of no serious critic who would disagree with
> this notion.
This is a mischaracterization of your initial premise. You said darkness
was a cliche and a trend. You titled the thread "Is LaChiusa's 'darkness'
passe?" As Doc, Frederick and others have pointed out, dark themes are as
old as the arts themselves, and are particularly relevant in the period
you cited. Your premise that "dark" themes could ever be a fashion (and
therefore "passe") was silly.
> 2.) Frederick, confusing the Pulitzers with the Tonys, irrelevently listed
> non-grim works which had won Tony Awards. The Tonys are industry awards,
> the opposite of "elite opinion". Was it elite opinion that gave John/Rice
> the award this year for best score?
>
> 3.) Frederick then listed Pulitzer winners. He was clearly unfamiliar with
> most of them, since nearly every one he listed was in fact grim ... many are
> brilliantly, even thrillingly grim, but grim nonetheless.
Which belies your premise that writers who explore dark themes are merely
being trendy.
> 4.) Being an actor, playwright, and all-around theatre buff, I have read,
> seen, or performed in virtually every Pulitzer winner he listed. Too bad
> for Frederick.
>
> 5.) Embarrassed, Frederick went postal, called me dishonest, an idiot, a
> follower of Michael Medved (huh??) etc. etc.
I agree people shouldn't engage in ad hominem attacks. But to call your
initial post dumb would be within bounds, and in my view, accurate.
> 6.) Totally ignoring what I actually wrote, Frederick claimed I had said
> dark work was bad, shouldn't be allowed ... that if I had my way only the
> work of Neil Simon and Norman Rockwell would be permitted in this country,
> yadda yadda yadda.
I agree this is making leaps, but no greater leap than you made in
generalizing about contemporary culture based on the movie SEVEN and the
"Sensation" exhibit.
> This is a common tactic of Freddy's. Losing an argument, he'll suddenly
> claim his adversary said something ridiculous and attack that instead. "But
> YOU said Hitler was cool and the Holocaust was really neat!" It's difficult
> to defend oneself against total fantasy.
Again, if you reread your initial post, not total fantasy. The idea that
dark themes are merely a trend or a cliche is just plain wrong.
> Anyone who's tempted to lock horns with Frederick -- think twice and save
> yourself the trouble.
>
> -- Steve in VB
ONY
Stephen Oles
clarify what I was saying -- that dark subjects have been fashionable and
favored by serious artists, critics, and elite opinion.
Nowhere did I suggest darkness or grimness is bad or wrong. Where do you
get that from? "Fashionable" is not a value judgement. But it can hardly
be denied that critics tend often to overvalue dark work, in an effort to
prove their own sophistication, and that artists consciously or
unconsciously choose dark subjects because they know they're more likely to
regarded as serious for doing so.
-- Steve in VB
"orpheusNY" <orpheus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:orpheusnyNOSPAM-...@dialup-209.246.87.147.newyork2.level3.
net...
Stephen Oles
> >Are you claiming that RENT is merely relentlessly grim and nihilistic.
Funny, I found it very life-affirming.
Sounds reasonable -- only no one but Frederick ever suggested RENT was
"relentlessly grim and nihilistic". I said it was dark: not the same thing
at all. "Seasons of Love" nihilistic? Come on ...
-- Steve in VB
Brenda
The central problem of the musical is, what do you do when society is
unjust? At the beginning, having been victimized and embittered, Jean
Valjean has the choice of joining in on the injustice (stealing again), or
working against it. The Bishop enlists him onto the side of the angels, and
although Valjean does blow it now and again (specifically in letting Fantine
slip through the cracks) he does stick to it. Although he can't remake the
world and reform France, he does triumph on the personal level, saving and
raising Cosette.
Meanwhile, everyone else in the plot explores unfruitful solutions to the
problem. The student revolutionaries are going for the big picture -- they
plan armed revolution. It goes nowhere and accomplishes nothing ("Nothing
changes, nothing ever will," is the lament afterwards.). Thenardier is the
reverse of the medal, throwing aside all questions of justice ("I look up,
and only the moon looks down!") for personal profit. Javert has defined
justice as smaller, as nailing Valjean rather than attacking larger societal
inequities, and in the end when he sees it's bigger than that he can't
cope.
There is no macro solution to the problem presented at the end, because there
isn't any. Achieving justice is presented as unattainable in the world of
the show, possible only in the future or after death.
Brenda <should really be doing useful work instead of analysis of old
musicals>
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough, author of DOORS OF DEATH AND LIFE
From Tor Books in May 2000
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
orpheusNY
"Stephen Oles" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> This is all a misunderstanding of my initial post. I've repeatedly tried to
> clarify what I was saying -- that dark subjects have been fashionable and
> favored by serious artists, critics, and elite opinion.
>
> Nowhere did I suggest darkness or grimness is bad or wrong. Where do you
> get that from? "Fashionable" is not a value judgement.
Steven-
You are not woefully misunderstood. You are woefully unskilled at
expressing your meaning.
"Fashionable" is undeniably a pejorative term when used in the arts. It is
almost always used dismissively. Are you going to similarly argue that
"cliche" (which you also used in the original post) is not a value
judgement? Please.
That's where I and others "get that from."
Read your own posts more carefully.
> But it can hardly
> be denied that critics tend often to overvalue dark work, in an effort to
> prove their own sophistication, and that artists consciously or
> unconsciously choose dark subjects because they know they're more likely to
> regarded as serious for doing so.
So are you argiung that Death of a Salesman and Streetcar are overvalued?
ONY
>
> -- Steve in VB
>
> "orpheusNY" <orpheus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:orpheusnyNOSPAM-...@dialup-209.246.87.147.newyork2.level3.
> net...
> > In article <3bz75.26814$_b3.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> > "Stephen Oles" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Jesse, if you think what you've quoted here has anything to do with what
> > > Frederick said, you haven't followed the thread. Here's what really
> > > happened (which can be verified by reading the posts in order -- if
> anyone
> > > has that much time to waste.)
> > >
> > > 1.) I proposed for discussion the idea that grim and dark material has
> been
> > > favored by critics and elite opinion in the period 1945-2000. This is
> > > basically self-evident. I know of no serious critic who would disagree
> with
> > > this notion.
> >
Noel Katz
an
>important theme was sounded when Mike wrote:
>>>They all just *die*. And death is not interesting unto itself.
>
>In too many musicals of the 80's and 90's, characters die and this is
>supposed
>to cause a great sense of loss and sadness in the audience.
doc: I think that characters die in drama because it is inevitable in life.
_ _ _ _ _
I don't deny its inevitability, but feel it's a shame there's so much death in
musicals of recent vintage. People used to think of attending a musical as a
fun event, rather than as a cry-fest.
In comedy, we endeavor to avoid the "cheap laugh" - Dramatists would be better
off avoiding the "cheap cry" of bringing on characters just to kill them off,
followed by mourning.
me: Lily in Secret
>Garden, who is mourned and mooned over ad absurdum until she appears as a
>ghost
>and basically says "Get over it!" at which point the character does. Huh?
doc: But doesn't the same thing happen in Carousel?
_ _ _ _ _
Not by a long shot. Julie Jordon perseveres to raise her daughter and never
whines or complains about it. Meanwhile, the dead Billy learns to achieve
salvation and whispering "know that I love you" is his entry to heaven.
Archibald mopes, scowling at the world (and at children), and in the first act
he's a rather imperfect single father to his lame son. The dead Lily undergoes
no similar dramatic transformation: She comes on to sing a pretty song, and
then Archy's all better.
me: >There are plenty of deaths in good musicals - The King of Siam, Billy
>Bigelow,
>Fiorello's first wife, but these are fully dramatized and we understand the
>consequences for other characters, as well as the plots of the shows, more
>fully.
...
>I may be hopelessly out of step, but when young fans of recent musicals tell
>me
>they were moved when Fantine (whose dream "that God would be forgiving" has
>been dashed) dies, they sound like pushovers.
doc: If some are moved by her death (melodramatic as it may be), who are you to
say that their feelings are invalid?
_ _ _ _ _
I identified a recent trend in musical theatre that I don't like and suggested
that MY feelings may be invalid. Telling arguers to reread one's post is so
tiresome, but perhaps you should take another look at Carousel.
Doc Bender
>me: Lily in Secret
>>Garden, who is mourned and mooned over ad absurdum until she appears as a
>>ghost
>>and basically says "Get over it!" at which point the character does. Huh?
>
>doc: But doesn't the same thing happen in Carousel?
>_ _ _ _ _
>Not by a long shot. Julie Jordon perseveres to raise her daughter and never
>whines or complains about it.
I was referring to the daughter. In the graduation scene, Billy leans over,
says one line and suddenly Billy's daughter smiles at the girl next to her and
gains strength, negating a lifetime of rejection and unhappiness in a moment.
The only difference between this and The Secret Garden is that Carousel is
well-written and sets this up in advance through Billy's pathetic attempts to
get through to her.
Meanwhile, the dead Billy learns to achieve
>salvation and whispering "know that I love you" is his entry to heaven.
>Archibald mopes, scowling at the world (and at children), and in the first
>act
>he's a rather imperfect single father to his lame son. The dead Lily
>undergoes
>no similar dramatic transformation: She comes on to sing a pretty song, and
>then Archy's all better.
I am NOT a fan of The Secret Garden, finding it to be rather melodramatic, but
I still don't see much of a difference between this and the end of Carousel.
Both are about coming to terms with the past.
>doc: If some are moved by her death (melodramatic as it may be), who are you
>to
>say that their feelings are invalid?
>_ _ _ _ _
>I identified a recent trend in musical theatre that I don't like and
>suggested
>that MY feelings may be invalid.
This is what you wrote: when young fans of recent musicals tell
>me
>they were moved when Fantine (whose dream "that God would be forgiving" has
>been dashed) dies, they sound like pushovers.<
To say that someone is a pushover certainly sounds like invalidation of their
feelings to me. It's a value judgment.
Telling arguers to reread one's post is so
>tiresome, but perhaps you should take another look at Carousel.
I think you need to look at Carousel again, not me.
Doc Bender
Matthew Murray
> Matthew Murray is the only person I've met who liked The Wild Party on
> Broadway.
<blinks> Um, I'm sorry?
===============================================================================
Matthew A. Murray - mmu...@cc.wwu.edu - http://www.wwu.edu/~mmurray
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A critical history of computer gaming: | "I'm up among the stars, on earthly
Over 195 computer game reviews, covering | things I frown, I'm throwing off the
games from 1977 to the present! | bars that held me down... Who could
| ask for anything more?"
http://www.wwu.edu/~mmurray/Reviews.html | --The Gershwins, from Crazy for You
===============================================================================
Katharine F. Hayes
"Here was a musical involving sadism, wife-beating, narcolepsy, rape, sex
with
underage girls, drug use, and a number of loveless sexual relationships..."
I am one more person that liked the show, but am having trouble with your
mention of 'narcolepsy'. I remember the other goings-on (sadism, etc.), but
not this one. Thanks for your help.
Katharine Hayes