Theatre Australia

your portal for australian theatre

to musical or not to musical...?

Sat, 21 Aug 2004, 08:16 am
Walter Plinge10 posts in thread
recently 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!!! ;)

Re: to musical or not to musical...?

Wed, 25 Aug 2004, 05:34 pm
OK, we have had the afficionados of musical theatre speak, now it's time for the counterpoint; I intensly dislike musicals. I have been to what seems like millions of them because I have a lot of good friends that sing and dance.

Why don't I like them? They make me uncomfortable, partly because they are hardly ever done well and partly because I find them boring. This may be because I don't have a proper appreciation for the nuances (although just reading Pauls post has gone a long way to remedy that).

I was thinking about just this as I watched Faust last night. The whole first act I was thinking "Y'know, if this was a play it would either be ten minuets long or it would have to say a great deal more than this thing is saying." By about the third act I was so caught up in the pretty frocks and the swirling music and Bruce Martin's amazing voice that all was forgiven (til my arse fell asleep half way through Act Four). I have to say also that the setting up for the crazy house Act was worth the ticket price by it's self (thanks Simon), it was one of the most disturbing and effective pieces of theatre I was ever seen.

But there was no singing and dancing in that bit. And when there finally was singing and dancing, it was basically "Come with me Marguritte" "No, I won't Faust. Angels forgive me" "We've got to get going, Faust, time is up" over and over and over again with slightly different notes each time. The whole scene, if it was "straight" theatre, would have taken two minuets instead of twenty or a lot more would have to have gone into it.

BUT, when I saw Assasins onstage at Playlovers years ago (first time I ever saw the Great DM perform) I was completely entranced, loved it, because it was SAYING something, cleverly and subversively. I loved the film Chicago, it was so cool, so much specticle, I loved Moulin Rouge for the same reason. When I saw Oklahoma though, I almost stoped loving Our Hugh because I was so bored. Yes, the landscape in Oklahoma is pretty, we get it.

I think that musicals need to be appreciated in a completely different way to straight theatre. I look for certain things in a piece of theatre, I want it to teach me something or make me think about something in a different way, or I want it to make me laugh. I want to be involved, I want to care about the characters. I can't apply the same requirements I have of straight theatre to musicals, but those are the only requirements I know.

In other words, I don't know what I am supposed to be looking for. My comment above about musicals not being done well, might be the fact that I don't know what "well" actually is.

Leah M

Thread (10 posts)

to musical or not to musical...?Walter Plinge21 Aug 2004
← Back to Green Room Gossip