Pittsburgh City Paper: An interesting aspect of the 2003 Broadway musical Wicked is how it has been transformed over the years from an entertainment into an industry. This re-imagining of L. Frank Baum's Wonderful Wizard of Oz (via Gregory Maguire's 1995 novel) features music and lyrics by Stephen Schwartz and a script by Winnie Holzman. The concept is that the Wicked Witch is the only "non-wicked" person in Oz, vilified because of her skin color and liberal views. The show received mixed-to-good reviews when it opened, losing the Tony that year to Avenue Q. But since then …
Monday, September 26, 2011
Wicked's an entertainment-industry juggernaut -- but it's also a good show
Pittsburgh City Paper: An interesting aspect of the 2003 Broadway musical Wicked is how it has been transformed over the years from an entertainment into an industry. This re-imagining of L. Frank Baum's Wonderful Wizard of Oz (via Gregory Maguire's 1995 novel) features music and lyrics by Stephen Schwartz and a script by Winnie Holzman. The concept is that the Wicked Witch is the only "non-wicked" person in Oz, vilified because of her skin color and liberal views. The show received mixed-to-good reviews when it opened, losing the Tony that year to Avenue Q. But since then …
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Wicked does carry some weight with it in our industry, but I can't say I know why. I know that there is a lot to the show technically, and the spectacle is great and larger than life, but does it really have that much more than any of the other big shows touring the country? I don't think so. Does it have more weight when you mention it? In some circles, certainly. I am very curious how it got that reputation, and how long it will last. I think people need to realize its just like any other show.
I understand where Calvin's perplexity might lie. In a way it is just another big show doing very well with a cult following, for now. I mean the same things I feel could have been said about Cats or RENT. But I also think that Wicked is somehow more applicable. By that I dont mean that its costumes, scenery, lights or even acting are better than other shows out there. But what I am saying is that at least marketing wise it is a very family friendly show without pandering to the kids too much, a parent will want to take their kid to go see it. But from an emotional or rather a personal standpoint I think that the story resonantes with people because its the untold story of the Wicked Witch of the West. The previous and the current generation grew up with The Wizard of Oz, it has to still hold some emotional tie that helps Wicked carry on. I know that for me I love this show and have seen it twice, it is a lot of fun, and truth be told the original story always scared me as a kid so I like this one a lot better.I am not sure how long this high will last but I hope that it does for a while.
Going along with what Calvin and Sonia have started discussing is how Wicked has been able to gain so much momentum, without a large majority of the population knowing very much about the show. When I mention the show to some people back home, they often have no idea of what I am speaking. But if I were to bring up "Lion King", they would know of what exactly I am referring to. Granted, Lion King is part of the Disney Corporation, which gives it substantial weight. But Lion King also has a deep history within the American entertainment culture. Its story can be traced through children of all ages, and appeal to older generations as well.
Wicked, on another hand, is not a story that you immediately relate to Wizard of Oz. Yes, if you know the story, you are able to make the connection. Once you do the math, and form that connection, the story and "glitz" of the show takes a strong hold of the audience. I believe that as a result of the roots of the show, we can see it either take off, or potentially fizzle out.
Calvin and I are on the same page with Wicked. I saw the show and enjoyed it, but there wasn't much to it other than the fact that all the acting was good, spectacle was great, and the show as a whole was entertaining. Yeah the show is impressive and flashy, but is that all it takes to make a show good anymore? Are we really evaluating a show based on it's ticket sales and budget rather than the show itself and what it has to offer artistically? I'm not saying Wicked is a bad show by any means, it was very entertaining, but it's a pretty shallow show as a whole. I don't think all theatre should be Waiting for Godot or anything, but I do think we should draw a line between the terms "good" and "entertaining."
Often, it is difficult to understand why specific shows resonate at a specific point in history. I think Wicked has the advantage of being a family friendly show that opened on Broadway when there were few other shows like it. I would argue that Wicked is also much more well crafted than many of the large broadway musicals. To push David P a little bit, why can't a good show be entertaining? Is there anything wrong with going to the theater to simply have a good time. I feel that a show should be considered successful if the people going to see it think that their time and money was well spent. In addition, in commercial theater a show lives or dies on ticket sales. They are the key factor to a shows success. No matter how artistically innovative it is, if people are not going to see it, then there is no show.
I agree with the article. Is Wicked the best show ever? Not really. But it is an entertaining and heartwarming show that many, many people enjoy. It get's a lot of flack, but for as much negative criticism as it's getting, it's making a lot of money and reaching a lot of different audiences.
The article also mentions that the tour has to replicate the Broadway version to maintain financial success. While it may not allow much freedom in terms of the performance it's great to know that the performers are committed. Then again it is their job, but it doesn't feel tired, and that's what's great.
Any person who wants any connection to the theatre industry will have had of in some way shape or form of wicked. Dancers, singers, actors, designers, almost impossible to have not heard of this show. ultimately as sonia stated, Its a successful show with a following. Now there aren't many other shows that have such a constant effect on todays Theatre enthusiasts but in my eye there truly is not much that different from Wicked to any other musical except that it just got to be a bit more successful over the years. After all it was beat out by Avenue Q for the tony, personal fan of the puppets.
I've been pondering how our version of Wicked compares to Broadway's, and I have to say I was impressed by the caliber of our quaint "Pittsburgh Wicked" show. The greatness does stem from the exquisite space (Benadum Theatre) that it is staged in, with it gilded walls and intricately detailed ceiling mural. The vocals were good but not superb (exceptions: Glinda = great, and Fiyero = take a lesson). For me, it was the set and lighting that impressed me the most. Take Act 1 Finale, when Glinda was soaring through the air and an array of light was shot through her point in space, but the misty darkness concealed the mechanics of the fly or the draping cloak.... all these measures warped our perception of scale so well.
Before I saw Wicked I too was skeptical. I didn't believe it was really all that it was cracked up to be. After I actually saw it in San Francisco I understood why its so popular. It might not be the best show musically, but its charming, funny, appropriate and interesting to people of all ages, and visually stunning. The costumes and set are spectacular. The whole show is overwhelming - in a good way.
Post a Comment