Sunday, January 24, 2010
Pared-down shows fare well
Variety: "While the fully recouped 'Hair' and 'West Side Story' hum along on Broadway, full-scale musical revivals took a blow this month when 'Finian's Rainbow' and 'Ragtime' closed abruptly, losing their entire capitalization after short runs. The radically pared-down 'A Little Night Music,' on the other hand, performs at 100% capacity thanks in large part to Catherine Zeta-Jones and Angela Lansbury, a starry combo that has made some auds forget, or simply not care, that there are only eight musicians in the pit. Waiting in the Broadway wings is an equally reduced 'La Cage aux Folles,' set to open in April, with Kelsey Grammer's marquee power justifying the $137 ducat for a Cagelle chorus of six and a band of eight."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
This article throws into light something that I had never really thought of before, one of the upsides of this economic downturn. The realization that some shows, originally produced with the full splendor of Broadway might be more successful in more bare versions. Obviously, according to the article, Camelot is not one of these shows, but the point remains. Producers would be smart to not shy away from the classical "big Broadway musicals", but to determine how to successfully use the economic challenges presented by the larger picture to positively influence the art. One of the best lessons I learned working in a small theater in Vermont is that sometimes having to deal with seemingly debilitating production problems can lead to a much better artistic result than getting everything you could want.
It makes a lot of sense that shows are doing well with somewhat smaller productions. I understand that there has recently been a lot of excess in broadway, which didn't always serve shows, maybe a little less focus on spectacle is good for the sake of actually presenting a show. In addition, it sounds like when they save money on production, some of these shows are using savings to buy some star-power, which definitely helps fill houses, for better or worse.
I believe that sometimes the best art comes out of creative solutions. Moreover, if having a reduced budget is one way to push creative solutions, I believe that all productions would benefit by having their budget consolidated.
Now I am not saying that all theatre with large budgets is garbage, because many shows use spectacle to completely enhance the experience of a production. However, sometimes the spectacle of a production can far surpass the artistic teams vision and even the underlying meaning of the original work (the script).
I also agree that the unfortunate economic situation we are in provides a unique situation where creative solutions to what would normally have money thrown at it, must be artfully supported in a different way.
I think it's really interesting that musicals without the glitz of Broadway are doing well. I think that a lot of people have more of an ability to relate to this right now, because so many people are having to lessen their glamour. I think that even though there are a lot of Americans who want to see the glitz to forget about what they are going through economically, there are also a lot of Americans who are getting annoyed at the glitz on stage when so many people are suffering economically.
The part of this article that stood out the most to me was the fact that Rag Time and Finian's Rainbow just closed! I mean its great that scaled down shows are doing well and that the economic state is bringing about creativity and ingenuity, but the fact that perfectly good shows are closing is troublesome. This affects me the most because I just went to see Finian's Rainbow over winter break. The first act was ok, but the second act really sold me and I thoroughly enjoyed the show. So, I'm sad to see it go and I'm sad that a lot of people are now amongst the unemployed masses.
This article offers contradiction to the comment that often floats around theater, the idea that audiences that spectacle is what sells. It is good to know that audiences have responded well to the more bare essentials versions of these plays and it is not soley the critics who ask for more then pomp and circumstance. All the same I appreciate that the author of this article acknowledges that spectacle has a legitimate and meaningful purpose in some shows, especially Aida as they noted. To often I think people fall into two separate schools, those who come purely to be impressed by grandeur, and those who eschew all in favor of the acting alone. Set, costuming, and lighting can be just as telling.
Watering down performances seems to have spread from the Vegas venues to the touring circuit. Audiences don't seem to mind, in fact, they often prefer the 90 minute version to the 120 minute version of most shows. Tickets can also be sold for less money (if the producer so chooses), and often draw a larger crowd. Additionally, smaller cities are now able to host some of the more popular shows due to the reduced technical requirements.
Post a Comment