WIRED: It’s too bad Glen Berger doesn’t have spidey sense; it would have warned him to run away. But in 2005, when Berger was hired to work on a Broadway musical adaptation of Spider-Man, it seemed like a dream come true for the well-respected but financially struggling playwright. In the wake of the Spider-Man films, a musical version seemed like a surefire hit, especially given the director (Julie Taymor of The Lion King fame) and composers (Bono and Edge of U2). Everyone involved thought the show would be brilliant.
10 comments:
A few years ago when Spiderman: Turn Off The Dark was in pre-production I was staring in from stage door at what was about to become the set of the production. One of the stagehands pulled me into the theatre and began to show me around the set and the theatre and I eventually became a production assistant on the show. Although the plot and story line were somewhat lacking to me, I enjoyed the environment and the innovative minds that I was surrounded with on the set. I feel as if a lot of the hype of the show, with the director of The Lion King as well as various other notable hands on deck, was created earlier on in the process when the ide was fresh and new and spider man was in the spotlight. However, I feel like the action packed story was good for the live-action technical aspect of things in theatre but might not have been as great in the musical department.
I saw the second version of this show and I really wish that I were able to see the initial version. Like the article said, the two versions are almost two completely different shows. I also was not aware at all of the political allusions of the show. This show would have been more charged and enticing I think if people were made aware of these. The version I saw did seem more family-friendly and I think that honestly harmed the production. Spiderman is a relatively complex superhero character and think that an audience would have been ready for a deeper show rather than just the flash of the character with acrobatics and cool effects. It was interesting to read that one of their producers passed early on in the process. They were described as charming and it makes me wonder if the show would have had more financial success or would it have just improved the show’s morale.
I saw this show last year, and one thing that struck me about it was the amazing quality of the costume and set designs. I sort of saw this as possible compensation for the low quality script and direction in the beginning. But I see this as a perfect example of circumstances forcing a design team to step it up. One of the only reasons I found the show tolerable was the design and overall image of the show, and not that I disliked the plot, but It was a bit childish for me.
I agree with Ben, I would have loved to see the first version in previews so I could make a more accurate comparison, but from what I know, the show improved greatly despite its many setbacks, and I agree with the article: it brought it up from a failure to something of semi-satisfactory quality, but definitely not a hit broadway musical by any stretch of the imagination.
This production - especially with the gift of hindsight - falls into that wretched category of things that are too big to fail. After all, the Titanic was unsinkable. I think the scope of the project perpetuated expectations that could not be reasonably met. As many star-studded ensemble type movies have received terrible reviews, there were almost too many big names attached to the project. And all of those big names are trying to preserve that "itness" that made them great, but trying to fit their "itness" into a collaborative piece.
Furthermore, trying to create a musical based on a franchise that has seen such a resurgence in popular culture is a lofty goal, even before the addition of a highly technical setup. I think the project may have succeeded had the musical aspect been cut. The telling of Spiderman through any medium - but especially theatre - would have been technically rigorous. But I think audiences would have connected with a live version of Spiderman, as the character is such a "people's hero". Perhaps one day a non-musical Spiderman could be a successful project, but it will be some time before people forget the sour taste of Turn Off the Dark.
It’s kind of weird to still be reading about spider man, because it feels like it’s been a really long time since it closed, although it’s really only been about a year. When it was still going on all of the articles that I read about it were about mishaps and things going wrong and running out of money and things like that, so it was nice to be able to read about this side of the story. The part about Tony Adams was really interesting, and I hadn’t heard any of it before. It was cool how he had the idea and was able to assemble what looked like a really great team to make it a reality. I’m not sure how I feel about the original idea, so I found it really impressive that he was able to convince people to sign on to it. His death was really unfortunate, and I wonder what would have happened to the musical if he were still alive. Maybe he would have been able to hold it together and it could have been a success. I actually never got to see it, and I kind of wish that I did because I think it would have been a rally cool thing to watch from a technical standpoint, but at the same time I’m not that upset about it.
Like Thomas, I'm sort of confused that we're still talking about Spiderman because though it closed only recently the news of its failures seem so far away in the history of recent events. I have to say my favorite line of the article came with the parallel between Berger's memoir and the tragedy Oedipus Rex -- a perfectly cynical attempt that, to me, displayed the same feeling I and many other critics felt as the musical premiered on Broadway. In the article it quotes Berger talking about Spiderman: Turn Off The Dark being the premiere show for a lot of audiences, how people were "turned on" to musicals after seeing it. I have to admit that I agree with this, but only on the grounds that some of the theatre shows being produced on Broadway are, in my opinion, almost as low a quality as Spiderman was. And that's only counting the originality factor. Spiderman the Musical was doomed from the start; it might have brought in a good amount of cash because of the notoriety of the main character, but it certainly won't be on any theatre critic's top ten shows in any sense of the list.
Spiderman had such promise. Sure the material is a little cheesy, it's intent a little camp, but the very premise was rich with possibility. Plenty of spectacular shows have been based off of cartoons and children's stories (The Lion King, Cinderella, even Annie) and done extraordinarily well. It is possible to make good theatre from a lowbrow source canon, and with a history and background as rich as the Marvel Universe, there was huge possibility for a show that balanced audience pleasing accessibility with real craftsmanship. If not for it's failures, with injuries, an iffy script, Spiderman could have been something akin to Pippin-- theatre that utilizes performative tricks outside of theatrical norms. This of course is why it is such a shame that the show did so poorly. It was an audience draw, sure, and it did create an entire new market of people who never even considered liking theatre before, but the real shame is that it didn't live up to its promise. If done well, I think it could have revolutionized theatre and theatre technology for some time to come.
While we all know that certain aspects of Spiderman were obviously a train wreck, I think this show is somewhat unfairly tainted by all of the horrible media coverage it got. Obviously when people are getting injured on set and the budgeting is out of control, you have some problems, but it really all comes down to a group of people who dreamt too big on a project, and haven’t we all done that? Those I know who have seen the show have enjoyed it, because what’s better than a superhero spectacle? Like Thomas and Nix, I am a little confused about why this article is relevant now, when it was such a buzz topic two summers ago. Either way, I think it is about time we put this show to rest; they dreamt too big and they fell too hard. Let’s not do it again.
I never got to see either versions of the show, and to be honest, after reading about the lack of substance in the plot followed by all of the actor injuries, I really did not want to. I felt as though it was a bad idea from the start and that it was executed poorly. This article also leads me to believe that the people who were in charge of seeing the project through were, despite the numerous pit falls, unwilling to rethink the project when it was obviously failing. I think that it is great that they had so many ideas and great intentions going into the show, but I just can’t see a point in the process according to the article, where people were willing to make the necessary choices to have a great show. I do wish I had seen the finished product now because it certainly seems like it will be used an example of theater mishaps in classrooms for years to come.
I have written many articles about Spider Man Turn Off the Dark here on the green page. I stand by everything I have written, about enjoying the show multiple times, and how it had a lot of untapped potential. For this comment, I want to write from a little bit of different angle. Over winter break I read Song of Spider Man, the book by the playwright about the process the production took. Also someone who was only following the show from the outside it was clear that there were collaboration and communication problems between everyone who was on the team to create this musical. The book dives deeper into all of the things that happened, and explains why events happened looking back on the journey. My take away from this was that creating a new musical is hard, and with anything new there are its own sets of risks that come with it. We always hear about the process that took the risk and went right, and those that didn’t succeed get pushed to the side and forgotten. Spider Man is just an example of how hard it is to create a new innovative musical. Like I said at the beginning of this comment, I will continue to applaud them team for taking the risk that they did.
Post a Comment