Poll

I have a couple of queries regarding the current poll. Firstly, it asks us to vote for our favourite "broadway" musical. By saying "broadway" I assume that means that angled strip in NYC around which most of the NY theatres are. So, does that mean we are being asked "Which of the current musicals on Broadway now (or recently) do you prefer?"? If so, I don't get it because there ain't too many of us here in godzown what get to go to too many "broadway" musicals. The voter base would be very small.

If the question should have been a more general "Which of these is your favourite musical?", why is there not somewhere for Leah and me to vote "None"?

Hear hear, Tone-Deaf!!

I would also join the list of "none"- in fact I voted "other"- mainly because the best musicals are the ones written by John Cage; silent!

The poll is actually flawed. 'Aida' by Verdi is in fact an opera not a musical. I also doubt as to whether 'Aida' would be performed on the Broadway strip. It would probably be performed at the Metropolitan in New York.

Voters should also have been given the opportunity to vote 'none', as some people (like me for instance) has an extreme dislike of musicals, with their phony emotions, superficial plot, and for the most part tacky tunes catering for the lowest common denominator.

It is a rather superficial poll with notable absences (the two biggest turning points in music theatre are not there - JC Superstar and Oklahoma) and some bizarre inclusions...Fame?! Lion King?!? Also, the English and the French would argue strongly with the definition of Les Mis, Cats and Phantom as 'Broadway' musicals.

> ... with their phony emotions, superficial plot, and for the most part tacky tunes
> catering for the lowest common denominator.

Ay carumba...if you weren't friends with my best mate (Nat Diggins) you would get a good sound flaming from me, not to mention from her, Cary (and weren't you in 'Little Voice'???). But as it stands, I shall hope that someone else will leap to the defence of this much maligned and well and truly valid art-form.

Amanda Chesterton

('Falsettos' deals with phony emotions and a superficial plot?!? You could have fooled me...I thought it was one of the first stage plays to tackle AIDS, homosexuality, and the impact on children. Oh, well. I guess I'm just part of the LCD...)

'Aida' does indeed play on Broadway - take it from me - I was there not a year ago!! It's not the Verdi version, it's the (if I remember properly) Lloyd-Webber interpretation.

Of course, I never saw the show, so I have no idea how it rates, but I know that it was certainly playing on the famous strip. I don't think there was an elephant, unfortunately.

I did, however, see Bernadette Peters in 'Annie Get Your Gun', and Bebe Neuwirth in 'Chicago', but sadly missed out on David Hasselhoff playing 'Jekyll and Hyde'. Ah well - I suppose you can't win them all...

Toby

PS - Remember! Cryocycle! Shrew! See!

Amanda (amongst other critics) wrote:

> It is a rather superficial poll with notable absences

Pity the poor person who submitted this clanger of a poll!

But i must say to the nay-sayers so ready to wade in, where are YOUR poll suggestions???

:-)

Three nit picking niggles about non-inclusion of this or that musical, but no submissions of your own?

Call yourselves creative?

:-P

Cheers
Grant

PS. No it wasn't my poll suggestion, or Sweeney Todd would have made an appearance!

OK here's my idea for a poll;

HOW MUCH DO MUSICALS SUCK?

A. A truely prodigious amount
B. A real lot
C. Mostly but not absolutely completely
D. I'm a big sissy musicals person so I have to vote D because I can't tell the truth and vote A, B or C.

Yay!! A poll for me, Cary and "I-hate-musicals-but-get-me-on-a stage-with-Nadia-Nasuf-and-you-won't-see-me-for-tonsils" Dean!

PS Actually I can't agree with Cary and say they are ALL utterly inane. "Assassins" wasn't inane and to a lesser extent "Into the Woods" wasn't either. And I hear "Blood Brothers" isn't inane. Just all the rest. Except the Hugh Jackman "Oklahoma" with the sound turned down. That's not inane. And speaking of Oklahoma I have heard an extremely good version of the title song sung by a non-musicals ex-Perth-pat. I think there may have been a bet involved.... or a least a large deal of alcohol.....

hehe

thanks Leah!

Actually i was thinking that ppl would use the Suggest Poll link that appears on the front page in the Poll box



It's easy to use, you can change the questions and answers as often as you like and you get a preview of exactly how your poll would look if it appears on the site.

:-)

Cheers
Grant

Fair go Leah! The chance to hang out with such a beautiful bunch of girls such as Nadia, the Kit Kat club girls and Jamie Cant was just too much to resist.
And speaking of Jamie, hasn't he aged well! Obviously keeping company with young people is good for you.
With regards your poll, I vote B.

Of course, one wonders if all this criticism from Dean is merely a feint, a diversion if you will, to discredit all other musicals in the eyes of the innocent but easily-swayed public, thus leaving the field clear for Dean to take Perth by storm with his own one-man production of HAIR, where, quite naturally, Dean would be playing all the "ahem" - parts - himself.

The more you deny it, Dean, the more people will be convinced itÂ’s trueÂ…

JB

It would be a flop!

Perhaps if Leah was to be upfront about her contributions, Perth need not be deprived of this standout production?

JB

I cannot begin to imagine to what you would be referring.

Um,

It's referring to the Elton John/Tim Rice musical Aida which is roughly based on the Verdi opera. It's been running on Broadway for over a year and (god knows how) won the Tony Award for Best Original Score last year.

Given that ignorance, your statement about the "phony emotions, superficial plot, and for the most part tacky tunes catering for the lowest common denominator" of musicals is a little hard to take.

Maybe in 1940 (that's the point, they were musical comedies for the masses), but the form has moved on since then.

Have you heard of musical theatre creators like Sondheim, Michael John LaChuisa, Rodgers & Hammerstein (at their best), Jason Robert Brown, Hal Prince, Kander & Ebb, George C. Wolfe, James Lapine, William Finn, Adam Guettell?...I could go on and on.

Cary wrote:
-------------------------------
The poll is actually flawed. 'Aida' by Verdi is in fact an opera not a musical. I also doubt as to whether 'Aida' would be performed on the Broadway strip. It would probably be performed at the Metropolitan in New York.

Voters should also have been given the opportunity to vote 'none', as some people (like me for instance) has an extreme dislike of musicals, with their phony emotions, superficial plot, and for the most part tacky tunes catering for the lowest common denominator.

Music, dance and theatre are all wonderful, equally valid and important artforms. I find it difficult to understand why some people think they become less valid when all three are combined. All I can think is that if these "musical bashers" could actually sing and dance it could be a completely different story.

Yeh for musicals!

To all the bashers: May the tunes to a hundred Rogers and Hammerstein songs get stuck in your heads:

Happy talky talk in happy talk, talk about things you'd like to do...... Getting to know you, getting to know all about you.... Walk on, walk o o o on, with hope in your heart...... Oh what a beautiful morning, oh what a beautiful day, I got a beautiful feeling, everything's going my way.....

There are a lot of people who bash "regular" plays as well. I've talked to many people who won't see anything BUT musicals. However, these people tend to be interested only in the light, clichéd heaps of fluff that abound. They don't want to think, they just want to be entertained by pretty colours. When someone goes to the theatre looking for something to really sink their teeth into, and they're presented with the theatrical equivalent of a fluffy bunny with a lobotomy, it can have the unfortunate effect of turning them off them forever.

You have to admit, there's not a lot out there that's being performed for the thinker. They exist, but no-one seems to want to do them. Not that I have anything against musicals in general, hell, I'm in rehearsals for one right now (despite not being able to sing, dance OR act!), and I've paid good money to see them. But as long as there are people out there that say "Uh, non-musicals are weird @!#$. I don't want to see anything confronting, let's go watch "Oliver" again," I will support the right of people to say... well all the threads above really.

Oh... and come see Travesties... to those that were worried, no, it's not me that does the strip tease this time. See the E-Poster at
http://l-space.tripod.com/trav.html

Amanda,

Fristly, Yes I am close friends with Natalie Diggins.

Secondly, I was in the cast of Little Voice

Thirdly, you must be getting my name confused with the person that posted the message. I am Cory NOT Cary.

Fourthly, I have been involved in some great muscials and been lucky to have been cast in some great roles, and I love muscials.

Finally, Maybe you should check names before you put postings on the ITA that seem to implicate me?


Peace, love and all that stuff
CJ

Gill averred ardently:
-------------------------------
*Music, dance and theatre are all wonderful, equally valid and important artforms. I find it difficult to understand why some people think they become less valid when all three are combined.

Yes, all three discplines are wondrous- music obviously is my greatest passion, the Dramatic is a very close second, and whilst I know virtually nothing of Dance, I appreciate its requirements of skill and talent of the part of its practitioners. My grievance with musicals stems from the fact that all three are usually given short shrift. Rarely have I encountered a musical in which all three arts (and I emphasise ALL THREE) reach the levels of perfection they can when in their own evironments. I have not heard a musical score which can compare to the symphonic works of Shostakovitch, not read an libretto of a musical to parallel the works of Stoppard or Miller, and does the choreography of most musicals rival the work of Nijinsky or Martha Graham?

This, I believe, is the intrinsic flaw of the Musical- there is no room in its format to lend the proper weight to its foundation disciplines. Obviously there are exceptions (predominately Sondheim springs to mind), but these are few- and unpopular.

*All I can think is that if these "musical bashers" could actually sing and dance it could be a completely different story.

Steady there, Gill.... although I admit my dancing is pathetically "white".

*To all the bashers: May the tunes to a hundred Rogers and Hammerstein songs get stuck in your heads:

That's the trouble- they DO! I wouldn't mind so much if they were any good....

Eliot

I was hoping that since no-one had picked up my gaffe yet, no one was going to...

The night I put that post up, I was drifting off to sleep and realised I'd got the names confused, but the next time I looked at the sight nobody had commented on my embarrassing oversight and my post was well off the page by then.

It was not you, Cory, I was bashing, it was Cary. In fact, I would have blasted him then and there in my first post and made a bigger twit of myself than I already have, so, really, unfairly implicating you has saved my (albeit eggy) face.

Culpa, culpa, mea culpa.

I'm going to go and find a larger rock to hide under now...preferably in outer Mongolia...

Amanda Chesterton

C'mon you guys, let's not pretend that NO-ONE goes to the theatre - sometimes - just for the pure joy of being entertained. Yep, we need all that thought-provoking stuff and so on but now and then, isn't it loverly to just watch and enjoy without having to exercise the grey matter too much? Not to mention participate.

See you at Sing-a-long-a-Sound of Music! (and I'll still recognise you, Leah and Dean, those nun's habits are not a sufficient disguise...)

that's fine

your forgiven this time

CJ

I have just been informed that 'Aida' was also made into a musical as well.

So let me get this right- Is this version of 'Aida' a travesty of Verdi's great opera?

Is 'Les Mis' a travesty of Hugo?

Is 'Man of La Mancha' a travesty of Cervantes?

What would T S Eliot think of 'Cats'? Do you think he would throw up?

I eagerly await the musical version of 'A Streetcar Named Desire' , with Marge Simpson as Stella.

Oh so that's what you meant.
I was wondering what the hell I was doing in a musical like 'Little Voice'.
Actually I thought 'Little Voice' was more of a comedy/drama, with light musical interludes rather than a true musical, but then I could be wrong.
Still that doesn't change my view about musicals.

You use the word 'travesty' very freely here, Cary.

I venture the opinion that most of these artists might have been delighted that their work has been reinterpreted and repackaged to a different audience. I hardly think you could call 'Lis Mis' a 'travesty' (sic) of Hugo or 'Phantom of the Opera' a 'travesty' of Leroux simply because they contain popular music. These productions take the well-known, well-loved *insert medium here - book, film, play, idea* and give it a new spin.

'Les Mis' is never presented as being 'BETTER THAN HUGO!' 'BOUBLIL AND SCHONBERG IMPROVE ON DUSTY OLD FRENCH NOVEL!'. Rather, a brilliant story is brought to the stage, and gives countless more people the chance to enjoy the story that Victor Hugo first came up with. Another example is the somewhat flawed, but still entertaining 'Jekyll and Hyde' - while Bricusse and Wildhorn's score and book are not exactly Robert Louis Stevenson, it is still thrilling and emotional, and publicises very clearly that it is "From the novella 'The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' by RL Stevenson". Is it the form of theatre that you object to, or is it adaptations as a whole? Do you think Shakespeare is spinning in his grave over '10 Things I hate about you', or even 'Otello' for that matter? It's a sad state of affairs that adaptations and remakes dominate our culture these days - the most successful Broadway shows in the past few years have been either revivals ('Guys and Dolls', 'Cabaret') or adaptations of other works ('The Producers'). What these adaptations do, however, is revalidate the relevancy of works which might otherwise have been lost in the mists of time (don't howl in protest - I said MIGHT) but by reinterpreting (yes, even to a musical theatre score) these tales are kept alive for years to come. And I guarantee you that more people have seen or heard of Llyod Webber's 'Phantom' than Leroux's. Travesty? Perhaps, if you want to be as markedly melodramatic as you were in your last post - but the truth is, Lloyd Webber's 'Phantom' is still Leroux's 'Phantom' - just repackaged.

Eliot would - 'throw up' - if he saw 'Cats'? Who are you kidding?
If you have such a problem with the medium, don't go to see Music Spectrum's 'Lis Mis' and then whinge about how it's not Hugo. Just don't go at all. Sit at home and read your original texts, and we'll all get on just fine.

Toby

At the risk of breaking with tradition and agreeing with Cary (albeit qualifiedly) you must agree, Toby, that a lot of the time your fresh and vital new "re-interpretation" involves a large measure of dumbing down. We assume that audiences are too thick for "The Taming of the Shrew" so we make "10 Things I Hate About You" and TRAIN them to be that thick. We take Phantom and we pretty it up so people don't have to feel uncomfortable. And the musical genre is a big culprit here.

Which is why there are stand outs like Sondheim. He tricks you into thinking it's all pretty, he gives you choruses you can hum and big frocks and then he challenges you and shakes you up. BUT he is in the minority, and a damn site more G&S gets performed.

It is true that if we didn't keep stories vital and relevent then we may lose them forever, but at what price? The soul of the peice? Are we selling out the amazing minds who produced these stories in the first place? Does it matter?

OK. But it doesn't escape the fact that most musicals are trite in content, superficial in structure and emotionally artificial. Let me ask you this... What is theatre acting? Real life emotions in an artificial situation, perhaps? OK... so what is musical theatre acting then? Artificial emotions in an artificial situation perhaps?
Another problem with musicals is its tendency to trivalise and dumb down the plot of a play.

Think of 'The Sound of Mucus' (sorry, I meant Music). How wonderful would that story have been if it had been developed as a drama about political persecution, or whatever the story is about. Made as a musical it diminishes the plot and context of that period into sentimental drivel full of of syrupy catchy tunes, and hollow truths. If you take musicals for what they are - a collection of catchy little numbers to whistle on the way home - then that is exactly what they are. I don't mind singing 'Some Enchanted Evening' at a karaoke bar, but I would hardly think of that song as a serious work of art anymore then I would the musical itself.

Think of opera as a form of fine dining at a restaurant, then musicals are nothing more than the fast food equivilent.

Cary wrote:
-------------------------------
Think of opera as a form of fine dining at a restaurant, then musicals are nothing more than the fast food equivilent.


It seems to me that you are not taking into account that everyone has different tastes. In the words of my father "it takes all kinds to make a world". And it really isn't very nice to be so intolerant of other people's tastes.

Me? I really enjoy fine dining (or in-depth dramas /comedies /etc), but on the odd occasion I crave fast food (and musicals). They are different genres and should be treated as such. They are as far apart as boys are from girls - and everyone knows you can't compare those two.....

I've seen Lloyd-Weber's 'Phantom', I also saw the original movie when it was shown in Kings Park earlier this year in conjunction with WASO. Both interpretations have many things to offer an audience. Unfortunately I haven't yet read it - but it's on my list.

And as with everything - if you don't like it, don't do it, but don't spoil other people's enjoyment of same.

Question - using your dining analogy, how 'theatrically' would you rate Fast Eddys last Saturday night? ;-)

Louise

It may well be that some of the previously mentioned pieces are 'dumbed down' to assist the audiences, but what does an attitude of snobbery about a genre as a whole achieve? It engenders an attitude that theatre and opera is a domain for the intelligent, the well-read, the articulate. I know this is not what you are saying, Leah (and Cary) but the danger is there. In my travels performing for schollkids, we would come across groups who were perhaps not as well off as your average opening night set at the Maj - and none of them had ever been to the theatre before. Why not, we would ask - and more often than not it was because it was 'boring' or 'too long'. We must recognise the fact that we have different focus groups for a reason: some people are just up for mindless entertainment, or for happy, silly tunes which don't qualify as classics. As Jenni said a little earlier, sometimes there is a need to go to the theatre, sit back, and zone out in front of something lightweight for a while. I mean, come on, how many of us have gone to the video store on a wednesday night after a long day at work and leaned towards the Adam Sandler because 'Howard's End' feels like a bit much work for that particular night? Musical Theatre and Opera have lived in a symbiotic relationship for years, because they both fulfil different needs. Opera singers have performed musical theatre too - I have just produced a CD from a bookshelf that features Kiri Te Kanawa and Jose Carreras alongside Musical Theatre veteran Mandy Patinkin in 'South Pacific'.

I am not disputing the fact that opera and MT are differing forms - that's the joy of it. I watched Pavarotti and Joan Sutherland yesterday on the ABC and was astonished with their immaculate talents - but I have also marvelled at the virtuosity of Mandy Patinkin and Bernadette Peters in Musical Theatre.

Both Musical Theatre and Opera CAN and WILL live side-by-side for a long time yet. Just because there is a Musical version of 'Les Mis' doesn't mean that the original has been superceded and made obsolete - it merely means that there is one more avenue for the story to be told.

Movies like '10 things' don't train people to be thick - it's the mere fact that teenagers simply will not attend a restoration style Shakespearean piece unless there is a twist to get them interested. Trevor Nunn's excellent 1997 'Twelfth Night' disappeared without trace while the less interesting '10 things' raked in the cash, because it aimed at a target audience, rather than saying 'Shakespeare's words are too boring - let's just cut them all...'. The fact that there have been more Shakespearean films made in the 1990s than in any other decade in film is testament to the fact that there is a strong audience for classics, while at the same time there is a desire for 'fluff'. The two can live side-by-side, without the author's intention being too severly besmirched, because the original work will always be there. This is what Kenneth Branagh has based his work on throughout the 1990s, as he produces 'populist' Shakespeare that appeals to the masses, but with an emphasis on the texts to encourage kids to go out and seek 'Hamlet' or 'Much Ado'. And it is no coincidence that university Shakespeare courses have exploded in enrolment since Branagh's 'Henry V' in 1989 (I can find the exact reference for that figure, if anyone is pedantic enough to ask me to qualify that!!) - and this is a direct result of 'dumbing down' Shakespeare.

ANd by the way, I am not a huge Musical Theatre buff. My wife loves it, hence the CD collection, but I appreciate its place in our cultured society and believe that if we do not have 'low-brow' culture to complement and balance the 'high-brow' 'restaurant meal' culture of expensive ballet and opera, then I am afraid we might have difficulty selling these mediums to the sadly disinterested youth of today.

Crikey, I enjoy debates!!

Politely awaiting a rebuttal,
respectfully,
Toby Malone

PS - Leah mentioned 'dumbing down' "shrew" - if you want to see a non-dumbed down version which also promises to be remarkably good, come to the Rechabites this week and next... it's going to be a cracker!
t

Am I mistaken or has Cary never experienced "Sweeney Todd", "Assassins" and "Company". Music theatre has come a long way from one catchy tune after another. Lets look at opera in context. Lets take a look at "The Barber of Seville", on eof my favourite operas. Is that not too a collection of catchy tunes one after the other, tied together with a little recitative? Even "Rigoletto" is filled with what to me are "catchy tunes". PLease correct me if I am wrong, but are you suggesting that if a piece of music is pleasant to listen to, it just isn't good enough? True, some, dare I say most if not all, I don't know, early musicals deal with trite subjects for simple escapism? I think that some opera buffs (please don't get me wrong I adore opera) should get off their high horse and experience music theatre as a different art form, not an inferior one. What is wrong with enjoyiong oneself? Why should every single peice of work be "serious"? IN relation to the other response, if Music Theatre belittles the work of Hugo et al, what about when Verdi wrote Rigoletto, Ernani and so forth? Did he damage Hugo's original works, did he belittle them? What about Puccini? If it weren't for his operas would anyone actually remeber the original plays and stories Tosca, Madam Butterfly and so on are based on? I have read Les Miserables and I have seen the musical version and I enjoyed both. I found it extremely offensive to have Music Theatre refered to as "fast food".

Cary wrote:
-------------------------------
OK. But it doesn't escape the fact that most musicals are trite in content, superficial in structure and emotionally artificial. Let me ask you this... What is theatre acting? Real life emotions in an artificial situation, perhaps? OK... so what is musical theatre acting then? Artificial emotions in an artificial situation perhaps?
....

You've got a fairly fundamental problem with your argument there Cary, doesn't the above mean that Opera too must be "artifical emotions in an artificial situation"? Doesn't that make it as bad as musicals? And after having seen "After Aida" I must say that the words of the songs in Opera (gee, I'm a philistine) are just as silly if not more so than those in musicals. Why is it a more valid art-form, again?

As for your rebuttal Toby, here goes. I fear reverse snobbery. People refuse to go and see Shakespeare because it's too hard. The kids won't try becasue of the highbrow reputation. So we have to package it as a Hollywood block buster, which suceeds while, as you yourself said, REAL Shakespeare (like the Twelth Night) sinks without a trace. Are we, in the name of re-inventing things and repackaging them to keep them alive, slowly killing the real thing? Give people a substitute that's easier to swallow and they won't bother with the original.

Or, if we decied we must cater to what we think kids tastes are (did we ask them?), why do we bother with theatre at all? We just need Juliet repackaged as a hotpant wearing, large bosomed, plait and gun toting archeologist and park them in front of "R&J for PS2". Or we lie down and give in to TV. Some ideas are worth preserving in their pure form and striving to get people to make that tiny amount of effort it takes to get the kids, or anyone else, to use their brains a bit and take on a challenge for a huge reward; beautiful language, real pure emotion and timeless stories. I don't beleive that if a child says "It's too hard" the first thing you should do is try to make it easy.

While updates, simplifications, and reinterpretations have their place, the problem is what they REplace.

Yo Louise,

Yeah it was OK for all that it was worth, but I paid ten bucks for that hamburger, which would rate as a night out at a cabaret.

I thought that with opera it was always the beauty of the human voice at full blast, without the benefit of being 'miked up' which was important. I also thought that with opera the orchestration of the music was also paramount. It transcends the actual 'realism' of the drama or comedy in much the same way as ballet for example. Neither artform professes some kind of emotional reality in much the same way that the musical tries to.

As for Dario's remark about how offensive it was to see musicals as fast food, I'm not rubbishing fast food at all. I'm sure some people enjoy it. You are what you eat!

Leah Maher wrote:
-------------------------------
I fear reverse snobbery. People refuse to go and see Shakespeare because it's too hard. The kids won't try becasue of the highbrow reputation. So we have to package it as a Hollywood block buster, which suceeds while, as you yourself said, REAL Shakespeare (like the Twelth Night) sinks without a
trace. Are we, in the name of re-inventing things and repackaging them to keep them alive, slowly killing the real thing? Give people a substitute that's easier to swallow and they won't bother with the original.

***

Granted, this may be the case - to an extent. I keep coming back to Kenneth Branagh because I have just completed my thesis on his work and I have a lot of time for what he does. Branagh recognises the fact that kids today might have shorter attention spans than in previous generations - the sad result of playstation, foxtel, and the internet - and packages Shakespeare to suit. That may not be ideal - it may not be 'Real Shakespeare' (sic) - but it's
a start. People often forget that the kids of today are the adults of tomorrow, and if we don't bring some form of culture to them, in a manner which they might identify with and enjoy, then they may never have any interest in authors like Shakespeare and Eliot, and Dickens - geniuses whose works have been rendered 'boring' by dry English classes at school. I have always been of the opinion that kids who hated Shakespeare only did so
because they had not seen his works on stage - the only problem is that we need to hold their attentions somehow. As long as we are not changing the texts radically (ie updating, which Grant's "Fair Northbridge" and "Banish'd to Mandurah" came worryingly close to) and instead work to make the milieu more interesting, with an eye to Shakespeare's unshakeable universality, we might succeed in converting some young people to carry the flame on into the future. If that means more Baz Luhrmann Shakespeare with thousands of teenaged girls queuing up for third and fourth viewings, then bring it on. I don't feel as though Shakespeare's texts are compromised by reinterpretations - and I don't think there is anything wrong with
adaptations. Shakespeare himself adapted almost every one of his plays ('The Dream' being the notable exception and even then the Lovers were pinched from sources) and there might well have been a hue and cry in London in 1601 when the London Danish population realised that this Warwickshire upstart had rewritten one of their most famous legends ('Amleth'), but
today it endures. And while 'The Lion King' will never replace 'Hamlet' just because it was adapted from its story, there is room for both original and adaption in our society. It is directors such as Branagh who recognise the need for accessible adaptations, but at the same time covets the text jealously, and succeeds. 'Much Ado' was made for $8 million and made $22
million in one summer. Not bad for a 400 year old production.

And while adaptations of Shakespeare can never come close to the Bard's work, it is hard to dispute the fact that Bernstein's 'West Side Story' or Verdi's 'Otello' are true works of genius, ones that will endure long into the future.

I agree with you, Leah, that the 'dumbing down' of culture is an alarming trend. But we must recognise the fact that society has changed to such an extent that kids would rather see 'Con Air' than 'King Lear' - illustrated so beautifully in John McTiernan's 'Last Action Hero' where Arnie plays Hamlet, preferred over Olivier. As long as the texts remain, I think everything will be okay.

Yours,
Toby Malone

I knew someone was going to bring up the bloody miking issue...

Musical theatre performers do not need mikes because their voices are in anyway inferior, or they have had a lack of training. They perform eight shows a week, and the mike, in my opinion, is a form of vocal protection. If anyone doubts a musical theatre performer's ability to project, stand next to an un-miked belter sometime - then come back and argue your case. You probably won't be able to though.

As for 'most' musicals being dumbed-down and fluffy, I would like to add to Dario's list: 'March of the Falsettos', 'Falsettoland', 'Blood Brothers', 'Hair', and even more popular works like 'Jesus Christ Superstar' which, in its time, gave the whole anglican church (and then some) a major shake-up. I would even add 'Les Mis' to this lot - in no way is it a dumbing down of the book. While it doesn't match Hugo's epic in terms of word count, it makes up for it in terms of emotion, passion and character development through the music alone - something which the non-singing, desperately unsuccessful movie versions have all failed to do.

And finally, I don't think I'm the only person who has gone onto explore the sources of the alleged 'dumbed-down' versions we see in music/movie theatres. My edition of Les Mis is falling apart I have read (and loved) it so much, as a direct result of the musical. Reading of 'The Odyssey' prior to seeing 'O Brother Where Art Thou' only enabled a greater appreciation of the movie, and prompted another reading of the work to find other parallells with the text (I refuse to believe the Cohen brothers' claim that they have never read it-the movie was way too clever). I have also noticed that this particular work is an awful lot easier to obtain in commercial bookshops now. I find it impossible to believe that this is a bad thing.

It will be interesting to see if the new Heath Ledger film 'The Knight's Tale' will have the same effect on Chaucer sales!

Amanda Chesterton

P.S. If anyone brings up Sound of Music again as an example of a 'typical' musical I'm going to cry. I would be the first person to tell you not to see that show if you're anti-musical - you have to really love the artform to get into that musical, and it is by no means representative of musical theatre as a whole. It's like saying that 'The Seven Year Itch' is representative of all western non-musical theatre. Enjoyable but by no means typical.

Case in point.

An opera singer is so well trained that they don't require mikes because they sing from the diaphram eliminating the stress from their vocal cords. Musical theatre singers sing from the throat which necessitates using a mike. Musical theatre singers are more likely to get nodules on their vocal cords which can become cancerous then opera singers. Musical singers sing badly (I mean physiologically speaking rather than artistically speaking - but then again...) so I would say that it is more of a dangerous artform then a clumsy one.

I was a little surprised that you were in with the "bashers" El. You put your case very eloquently, unlike those who "bash" quite thoughtlessly, but I just can't agree. (Maybe this has something to do with my slightly less complex mind).

I admit that I am also not a great fan of R&H but I do think that there are many, many wonderful musicals out there and I will go on sticking up for them.

See you soon Papa Mc.
Gill

Gill rightly rebutted:
-------------------------------
*(Maybe this has something to do with my slightly less complex mind).

Not at all- your mind is just as complex as anyone else's. It's just a thought or two I have entertained over teh years as to why I, musically inclined as I am, can't abide most musicals.

*I do think that there are many, many wonderful musicals out there and I will go on sticking up for them.

EXACTLY! Fight the good fight! I do not think you are "wrong"- and neither are the people who disagree with my point of view. We just sit on opposite sides of the house...

*See you soon Papa Mc.

Hopefully at Amadeus- there's some GREAT music in it!!

Eliot

Before I say anything else, I enjoy Les Mis... saw it in the West End and loved it, saw it at the Entertainment Centre and might as well have watched it on tv (bad venue for it methinks), but I enjoy the musical.

However, I'm sorry but Les Miserables - The Musical - is HUGELY dumbed down from the book. The musical makes a half-hearted attempt at establishing Valjean as a devil-made-saint, and then cuts straight to the love triangle between Marius, Cossette, and Eponine. It ALSO makes it look as if Eponine and Marius have been "buddies" for years with a deep spiritual bond. They lived next to each other for a while, Marius never noticing her family except in an act of charity, and the Thenadier's never paying much attention back, as he is considered too poor to steal from.

Gavroche? Oh how I hate Gavroche in the Musical. He sings a cutesy, play-school remix for the kids in the audience, and oh, whaddaya know look he's a poor scared widdle tyke in front of the barracades, how dare they shoot him. Gavroche was not the play-school poster boy, he was a criminal blessed with the fortune to still be a child. He spends half of his time at during the revolution lamenting the fact that his pistol doesn't work, as he'd love to join in the bloodshed! Of course, while we're at it, let's negate to mention the other 3 Thenadier children even slightly, or even the connection between the Thenadiers, Javert and Marius. And hey, even if it took months for Marius to fall for Cossette, we can reduce that to a simple passing in the street and taking a fanatical fancy to a pretty face can't we? Of course we can! Why not?

You know, what, I won't go on, as I'm fairly certain that these messaged DO have a limit on them. As I have said, I enjoy the musical, and will certainly be going to see it at the Regal, as well as dragging along a group of friends who haven't seen it, but it IS a dumbed down version of the book, mainly due to the shift in focus from a broad view, to concentrating on the lowest common denominator - the lovers.

Troy

Good God! Les Mis the book has absolutely NOTHING to do with the musical. Sure, the characters in the musical are the rough equivalent of SOME of the characters in the book, but what about the Bishop? Where did Basque go? I don't even have time to list the chapters (nay, entire books) that don't appear in the musical.

The very idea that you could distill a thousand page literary classic into a two hour musical that can be performed by some idiot who can't even pronounce 'Javert' is ridiculous, and you people should stop trying.

One more gripe - why does every performance of Les Mis have to have Cockney accents? You'll excuse me for not seeing the logic there - it's a story written by a Frenchman, set in France, with a cast consisting entire of French characters. Is it too much to ask, if you're going to destroy the very story, that you at least keep the original language?

Streetcar the musical opens in NY next may 2002.

Uh- ha. Does Marge Simpson appear as Stella by any chance?

Yes, yes, Cary - you made that hilariously astute popular culture reference already. We take your point.

Only kidding Toby. Relax.

I must point out that I never really meant to hurt anyone's feelings on the matter of musicals. True, I don't like them, and probably never will, but I certainly must appreciate the fact that most people do. I would like to make an apology to Amanda Chesterton as she may have had a rougher time of it then anyone else (her big opportunity with 'Oleanna' fell through if I recall).

Enjoy your musical experience but don't ever count on me being there!

:-)

Cheers
Cary

Have we come to the end of the Musicals debate?Please God,as some great Musicians once sang "Let it be"
No definitive answer has emerged,so I still don't know whether Musicals are crap or great theatre,or both,or neither.But NASA reports that the World is still turning and satellite pictures can just confirm that "There's a bright golden haze on the meadow"
And who is the protagonist who upsets some of the Web Site visitors??
ME NO CARE(Y)
New subject Please!
PJF.