Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Original Musicals Are Not God
OnStage: Only 18% of musicals in the past 30 years have been wholly original. To some people, this is a sign of the decline of musical theatre. It’s proof that outside forces are intruding on the Great White Way and taking everything we hold dear with it. They act as though if we loose originality, we loose all the things—good lyrics, amazing visuals, breathtaking performances—that make musicals great. However, this mindset is based off the flawed assumption that original musicals are inherently better than other musicals.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I feel like this author has a very interesting definition of what an original musical is, and that their definition explains why the percentage is so low. Most people haven’t done the research that this author has, which is actually very interesting stakes in the argument being made. Hello, Dolly! Is a spinoff of a spinoff and absolutely rocked the Great White Way in the 60s. Adaptations from movies really is the downfall of spinoffs because everyone already knows the movies and how great or terrible they actually are, and the staged productions either make or break those expectations. I do think people try to cherish originality in the quality of shows, but what really makes a show is the cohesiveness of design and the stunning quality and determination of the actors. Without a predetermined idea of how the show could be, any show could be a great success or a huge flop.
I like this a lot. I often hear people complaining about how unoriginal things are, but it so often does not matter. You can compare a book to a movie or a movie to a play/musical all you want but in the end they are different and it does not matter which came first. Judging the quality of a movie based on a book is silly. The Lord of the Rings movies are good, not because they accurately portray the books, but because they are awesome in their own right. The Hobbit movies are bad, not because they did a terrible job of portraying the books, but because they were jumbled and ridiculous. The same goes for the stage. Who cares if Disney is just trying to make a few extra bucks off their franchises, if Aladdin and Frozen and the Lion King are good on stage, then they are worth portraying on stage. No matter how much people want to elevate it, theater is entertainment and the show was entertaining it accomplished its job.
At first I was a little taken a back by the headline of the article but soon understood the argument and agree with it, but don’t see its relevance. So only 18% of Broadway musicals are 100% new ideas and it being original does not dictate its quality. I do not think (granted I do not know) that a ton of people think that the only good Broadway musicals are musicals that aren’t based off a book, another story, another play. There are some incredible musicals that have stories derived by someone other than the playwright. Wicked is a fantastic musical with a really great sense of art and it is derived from a different story. I agree that musicals like Legally Blonde may not be running for their art, but that is for reasons other than it was a movie first. And at the same time while I do not think Legally Blonde and such are musicals with a lot of artistic integrity I think they are great musicals. If you want to do a piece of theater with a lot of artistic integrity, a musical probably isn’t your best bet in the first place.
This is such an important article and I feel as though I have these thoughts so often! One of the most important things to note and the article does do this about originality and musicals is that inspiration in musicals is great, but actually transforming a movie into a musical for franchising purposes is somewhat of an issue. If there is a new story tell based on the previous story, then I think that all musicals like that deserve a chance. However, if the movie was already a musical and putting it on stage to earn a few extra bucks is not okay with me. I like how the article concludes with discussion of the relationship between original versus unoriginal and good versus bad material. While often there can be parallels between good and original it is important to judge every production for what it is not the connotations that you enter with.
I think a lot of this has to do with audience experience, and the stigma surrounding revivals. I remember an article written by Ben Brantley a couple weeks back that reminded me of the significance of good revivals, and I think that it really did take a lot of convincing on his part to make me believe that revivals were really worth seeing regardless of how many times you've seen the show redone. This plays alongside the fact that I personally like seeing original musicals because I think about the work differently and I view the ideas as, in some ways, more genuine. Watching the start of an idea or a theme be spreading is always more exciting than the sequel. Perhaps this mindset can be altered, but Broadway would have to spit out the most incredible non-original musical based on a movie that the whole world was talking about to convince audiences that non-originality is a non-factor.
I have a lot of mixed emotions about this article. First off, I think that there is as much potential for a new musical to be good as there is for a revival to be good or bad. The struggle with writing a new musical is that you are literally creating something out of nothing. Where as with a revival or taking a pre-existing story (like a popular movie or book) the audience is coming in with certain expectations. And when you do not meet these expectations that is when your production does not succeed as well as an original musical. The problem is that people like seeing shows that they already know the story line for. This equates to anything new being bad when it is actually quite good. I applaud everyone who works on new work, especially musicals, for everything that they do because their job is not an easy one, and also one that does not nearly receive enough credit.
If you are making the argument that musicals that are not original shouldn't be discounted, then you've got me. I completely agree. Legally Blond is a little bit of a drippy musical, but so is Guys and Dolls or Oklahoma. Amazing Grace was original, and closed as fast as it opened. The fact that it was made from a movie has no bearing on the fact that the music is good and the plot is fun. I wouldn't give so much credit to Elf the Musical, but shows like Legally Blonde, Bring it On, even Spring Awakening aren't made worse by being based on an existing work. They are what they are, and often, they are really good. Originality is exciting, but it isn't a requirement for good art. I hope people haven't given up on original creations, but it would be wrong to think that they are the only thing deserving of information.
When I started reading this article, I was a bit annoyed with the idea behind it, because I really was not a fan of unoriginal musicals. But after reading further and taking a closer look at the definition that the author provided, I definitely agree. I do not think we should judge the quality of a musical based on whether or not they came from another work. There are many other, much more effective means of judging the quality of a musical. I think the only place where the original versus unoriginal argument applies is the movie industry and not in the terms that the article discuses. The movie industry is absolutely riddled with sequels which are considered bad because it's simply capitalizing on an previously successful industry to gain money. Movies are where the most original ideas are needed. But on Broadway it seems to be less of a problem except when it is taken in the same terms as it was with Hollywood. When a musical exists only to capitalize on an previously successful industry, such as Legally Blonde: the Musical, it starts to be less of an art form and more like a crowd-pleaser existing only to make money. Original or Unoriginal, there are many more aspects that you can judge a musical on other than that.
The idea of theater no longer being “original” has been coming up in conversations I have with others more and more often. I loved what this article said about how all art has “ulterior motives”, because it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that artists want to make money with their art. In my Foundations of Drama 1 class we were discussing the idea of the spectacle of musical theater being gimmicky or “just for money” or “not real theater”. I hate theater elitism, because it makes no sense to me; just because a story isn’t crazy deep or emotional, or has fancy lights or a big budget, or big dance breaks, or is based off a movie, doesn’t mean it isn’t a valid art form (also, who are you to define what is and isn’t art?) I think people forget that the spectrum of theater is what makes it so special; I’m all for new, experimental work that breaks boundaries, but I would be lying if I said that I don’t enjoy watching a big- name musical like Wicked or Anything Goes. That being said, I do get excited hearing about/ seeing completely “original” work. This summer I designed the set for Motel Rasdell, a musical inspired by a sketchy motel a few towns over from mine. It was really cool to do a design for a show that didn’t have any basis in text or other entertainment forms; we were able to approach the concept with a clean slate. I think this argument could go in many different directions, but I think people might just need to have more of an open mind about what constitutes theater in general.
I wholeheartedly agree with the author’s point that simply because something is not 100% original makes it inherently worse than something that is. Sometimes reinventing the wheel can change the way we do theatre, or even the world. More often than not however it ends in a flop. This is why the inherent format of the musical has stayed relatively constant for the last 70 years. This is not to say that innovation has ceased but rather that theatre acts more like a growing tree, constantly creating new branches, than a river where every theatre piece must follow one path. I think truly original art can often have the power to introduce a new viewpoint to a conversation but sometimes that’s not what we need. Sometimes all we are looking to do is tell an old story in a new and exciting way because its message still applies. It’s why we still do Shakespeare and it’s why we will continue to convert all kinds of stories to the stage for years to come.
Working on an original musical is a very different experience. This summer I worked on Amazing Grace and that was an original musical moving to Broadway. Though it already ran for a while in Chicago, the show was changing a lot for its Broadway opening. The rehearsal process was very different because the writers were at most rehearsals and constantly changing the script. There is a lot of work that goes into creating an original musical and it takes a lot of determination. There is a huge risk in a new show because you do not know how people will react to the show and if it will be successful or not. Everyone is putting their hearts into a piece and hoping for the best. I have so much respect for everyone involved even though the show may not have been a huge success. They all worked so hard on it and followed their dreams. This was the writer’s, Chris Smith, first show he ever wrote and he was able to make it to Broadway, which is incredible. I have so much more respect for anyone trying to create an original after my experiences this summer.
I think we tend to overemphasize the importance of originality. I agree with the point of this article, and I also think there is something to be said about the power of work based on previous work. For example, Wicked (which is one of my favorite musicals) is based on the book Wicked, which is based on the book/movie the Wizard of Oz. If I saw Wicked having never seen the Wizard of Oz, and thought it was just a stand alone original story, I would probably still enjoy it, but not to the degree I do. What is interesting about it is that it gives another perspective on a story most of the audience knows pretty well. Some of the cool parts of the show are when something happens that allows the audience to realized who characters become or what events triggered events in the original story (I’d be more specific, but I don’t want to spoil those moments for anyone who hasn’t seen Wicked.) Even musicals with original plot lines are still based on something. For example, Hamilton may not be based on a book, movie, or play, but it is based on the plot line of history, and Something Rotten! isn’t based on a previous story line, but it is based on a well known historical figure in a well known and romanticized historical time period, and the major plot point (things going wrong due to seeing into the future in order to change it) isn’t original. I think aiming for originality is not only near impossible, it is counter productive. Building on plot lines and elements of previous works is a good way to end up with an interesting musical, or an interesting story in general.
I definitely agree with the author of this article that unoriginal should not equal bad in the world of musical theatre. However, for many, especially those who work in the industry, this has become the normal response. Personally, I think there is a huge difference between a musical that is based on another existing work but is still innovative in its storytelling techniques, and musicals that are exact copies of existing works in musical form. For example, I would call Beautiful The Carol King Musical unoriginal, in my mind, in a negative way. The musical is very enjoyable, but all of the songs are exact replicas of King's work, and the storyline is simply her story. If the musical had included songs that were not just Carol King's I would have felt differently. This differs from plays like The Curious Incident of the Dog In the Nighttime, which is based on a novel, but uses incredible storytelling devices (innovative use of scenery, lighting, and media) to make it a truly original work.
I do not think it is wrong for our musicals and plays to be based off of already existing work. However, I think the best musicals are the ones that put a new perspective in the audiences' lives, whether that perspective is based off already existing work or not.
Everyone has their own idea of what theatre is. For some people, theatre is anything performed on a stage. For other people, theatre is only straight plays or very serious musicals. Personally, I lean more toward the former. I think typically most people feel the line that a show has to cross in order to no longer be "real theatre" is if it is based on a very well known pre-existing art piece (ex. Legally Blonde, Shrek, Big Fish). Since the previous work was very popular, a reimagination of the same thing is "unoriginal." However, as the author points out, very few shows are actually 100% original. For example, many people may think A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder is original, but it is based on a film called Kind Hearts and Coronets. In fact, the past four winners of the Best Musical Tony have been directly based on other works. While some movie musicals can be kind of annoying and flashy, it's ridiculous to say that only "original" theatre is worthwhile.
Broadway doesn't reward risk. It's a series of commercial ventures funded largely by tourists who come in from out of town and for whom theater is not the all-consuming passion, vocational and artistic, that it is for us. We are asking the typical Broadway theater patron to spend more money on 3 hours of entertainment than most people spend on their monthly car payment for something that isn't part of their regular cultural lexicon. This sets up an environment where people want to ensure that what they see is good, relatable, and enjoyable. So they see things that they've already been introduced to in order to maximize their enjoyment while they're in the theater. I think the problem is largely that we as a society and as a theater community are still using Broadway as the gold standard for artistic achievement in the industry. That sets us up to fail, be disappointed and then get bitter and whiny about how Mamma Mia and Phantom of the Opera are still running, when things like Amazing Grace are not.
This is so true! So often in our society we classify creative works as being either original or unoriginal, and this determines how much value we place on them. Plays such as "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern" and musicals such as "Wicked" recycle characters from some of the most well known works in the Western World, yet does that make the work less valuable? If we look at the popularity,, of these shows we can most likely infer that this is not the case, yet there certainly is a fine line. I personally believe that while these works are certainly inspired by a prior creation, their messages are entirely different from their inspiration's, which in my opinion shows an equal if not more creativity than constructing a new idea from scratch. The ability to take a well known work, and reinvent it in some way that makes it entirely fresh and exciting is truly an achievement and should be recognized as such.
It very obvious that I agree with everything stated in this article, but I really wish it had explained how we are suppose to change our ideas about original musicals and how we are suppose to get better original musicals written. I consider myself a director who usually directs original work, I want to expand my writing ability though. I’ve usually only done straightforward, cute, goofy, little one acts with no budget. I want to write something that would challenge a designer to make something beautiful. I want to write something that would almost force an actor to grow as an artist. I want to do so much with my writing, but I struggle at breaking out of my box, I get really scared about it. How can we convince the community of writers that we have that it is okay to do something crazy, take a stand, and fail? How do we make that sound appealing?
Post a Comment