to musical or not to musical...?
Sat, 21 Aug 2004, 08:16 amWalter Plinge10 posts in thread
to musical or not to musical...?
Sat, 21 Aug 2004, 08:16 amrecently i had a discussion about the musical vs "legitimate" theatre, with some friends of mine, they expressed the veiwpoint that musical theatre cannot be construed as anything close to "real" theatre but as nothing more than a few songs and dances pushed together in an effort to try and make some kind of story... being a student of musical theatre myself i was horrified that anyone so closely involved with the artistic world (one being an actor the other a director of short films) could have such a strong conviction against the musical, i was forced to listen to argument after argument about how there were no real characters, no emotional depth etc etc. i would just like to know if this is a veiwpoint many of the theatre community have adopted or just a minority???
darian
(i did try to post a poll suggestion but either my computer literacy skills are even worse than i thought or it wasnt working!!! ;)
darian
(i did try to post a poll suggestion but either my computer literacy skills are even worse than i thought or it wasnt working!!! ;)
Re: to musical or not to musical...?
Wed, 25 Aug 2004, 09:13 amWalter Plinge
Hello Darian
I think you will find that "a lot" of the theatre community have a viewpoint that musicals are an excuse to have singing and dancing.
I could not say "most of the theatre community" as musical theatre uses a lot of people in a show so these people could perhaps outnumber the non musical theatre people. In community theatre musicals are good because they give more people a chance to appear on stage, work behind the scenes and tend to bring in a larger audience with larger profits for the theatre.
I think that for a lot of musicals it could be a simplistic view as MGM used to roll them out by the dozen to make money and used actors who went on to earn Oscars in drama movies as their musical actors, in very ordinary musical rolls.
The good musicals used actors that excelled in singing, dancing and acting which is where our favourites come from.
But can't the same be said about "theatre", that most shows are churned out to make money and have a very thin story line and ordinary actors. Expecially if you ask the theatre goers that latch onto a very limited range of theatre that never pulls in a large audience so is relegated to the smaller venues to try and cover costs.
Most theatre is run on a commercial footing, even community theatre, so the shows picked for a season will be one or two comedy's, a musical, a one short one act season to introduce new directors, two dramas that are middle of the road and maybe every second season a strong drama that has to be well publicised to alert the audience to its coarse language or adult themes.
To do otherwise requires a good sponsor or supporter and only one or two companies can survive in this niche market of what is probably the closest to true theatre which is cutting edge and often controversial.
I went to see The Blue Room at The Maj to see Sigrid Thorton naked and was rewarded by an excellent production that deserved to be seen by a sell out season but would not have achieved this without the nudity.
Don
I think you will find that "a lot" of the theatre community have a viewpoint that musicals are an excuse to have singing and dancing.
I could not say "most of the theatre community" as musical theatre uses a lot of people in a show so these people could perhaps outnumber the non musical theatre people. In community theatre musicals are good because they give more people a chance to appear on stage, work behind the scenes and tend to bring in a larger audience with larger profits for the theatre.
I think that for a lot of musicals it could be a simplistic view as MGM used to roll them out by the dozen to make money and used actors who went on to earn Oscars in drama movies as their musical actors, in very ordinary musical rolls.
The good musicals used actors that excelled in singing, dancing and acting which is where our favourites come from.
But can't the same be said about "theatre", that most shows are churned out to make money and have a very thin story line and ordinary actors. Expecially if you ask the theatre goers that latch onto a very limited range of theatre that never pulls in a large audience so is relegated to the smaller venues to try and cover costs.
Most theatre is run on a commercial footing, even community theatre, so the shows picked for a season will be one or two comedy's, a musical, a one short one act season to introduce new directors, two dramas that are middle of the road and maybe every second season a strong drama that has to be well publicised to alert the audience to its coarse language or adult themes.
To do otherwise requires a good sponsor or supporter and only one or two companies can survive in this niche market of what is probably the closest to true theatre which is cutting edge and often controversial.
I went to see The Blue Room at The Maj to see Sigrid Thorton naked and was rewarded by an excellent production that deserved to be seen by a sell out season but would not have achieved this without the nudity.
Don
- ···
- ···