The Producer's Perspective: Stephen Sondheim is a genius. And as I said in one of my first blogs, way back in 2007, he’s the Shakespeare of American Musical Theater.
But that doesn’t mean he’s right all the time.
And last week, he was just wrong.
Not about anything artistic, mind you. I’m certainly not correcting a lyric of his, or a time signature.
But in an interview he gave with Billboard (where he talks Radiohead, Disney and more), he took the interviewer’s bait and agreed that our industry was “too insular to age well.”
7 comments:
This is an interesting post and I have to say that I agree a little bit with Sondheim and a little bit more with Davenport. I would still love to live in a world where "That sounds like one of those broadway sing songs" is extinct. Or where my mom doesn't shudder when I put showtunes on in the car. I would love to see more breaking of boundaries and less tourist-grabbing commercial ventures. But on the other hand, I LOVE the classic Broadway musical. I love the way a "normal" musical makes me feel. I love the energy and the excitement and the predictable ending. I love leaving the theatre with a smile on my face. So I don't think we need to get rid of those. I just really look forward to the new things we can do with theatre, the new risks we can take. I think some of the best examples of this kind of risk are on Broadway right now. Between Hamilton, Fun Home, and Spring Awakening- I would say there is a totally great variety in risk-taking going on. And a variety in *types* of risk-taking, as well. So in some ways, I agree with Sondheim that we should always be pushing for more, but I'm also totally with Ken in believing we're already taking great steps.
I'm really torn here. On one side of this argument is the "we're too wrapped up in what we're doing to realize that other people don't pay attention argument" and I've seen it pop up on here several times. I think that's a fair side of the argument to go from, where we see that we are taking risks and *we* know how hard everyone works to make important but, at the end of the day, entertaining work. Unfortunately, not many people outside of the theatre industry hear about our huge milestones. I'd love for everyone of my family members to keep up with the Hamilton hype but the truth is that even with all of the craze happening over Hamilton my parents didn't hear about it until Lin-Manuel Manuela was on the news, and even then they have no idea what the show is about or why it's an exciting piece of theatre. They know that it's popular and that nobody can get tickets for about 100 years.
The other side of this is the fact that despite everything I just said, we still take these risks and attendance goes up and up. It won't ever be overwhelmingly popular for those visiting Broadway who aren't "hip" to the theatre scene to see the risk shows, but at least they're there to chose from.
I think that Kat's comment really shows the two legacies that Broadway is torn between: the big classic, feel-good musical and groundbreaking, risky work. That's just on the audience side though - as Davenport points out, there are many loyalties and financial ties that regulate what gets on Broadway and what doesn't. Honestly, I think I agree with his assessment, but I would add that if he thinks there isn't enough great stuff to pick from and take risks with, I wonder if it'd be worth looking a little harder. Is that really it, or are there gems hidden far away from Broadway, that could make it in these theaters but never do because they don't get noticed? I think I'd need to know more about how producers get a hold of scripts to be more assertive about this, but it seems like knowing the right people is a big way to get your story in the door -- are we missing out on some great musicals because new, exciting and subversive work isn't making it to Broadway?
I've heard a lot of Broadway producers talk about being in this exact predicament. They often say something along the lines of "we do the typical, safe moneymaker musicals IN ORDER TO do the new, risky work." While I too wish Broadway could be made up of new, risky, exciting work, I also understand that is not reality. Hamilton, for example, would never have gotten to Broadway if it didn't have such outstanding reviews in its earlier incarnations. Commercial producers saw the success of the show at The Public, and decided to bring it to Broadway. I would argue that, although the idea of a hip hop musical about the life of Alexander Hamilton is risky, bringing this work to the great white way was far from it. Thus, I don't think we should necessarily be concentrating on if we are bringing new, risky work to Broadway. Instead, I think we should be concentrating on bringing good, innovative work that pushes the boundaries. While producing the bright, flashy, predictable shows might make a sustainable broadway ecosystem, it will not make us grow. Ultimately, I think Sondheim and Davenport are fighting for the same point here. I think Davenport is just hurt Sondheim in putting the responsibility of bringing exciting work solely in the hands of the producers.
It is heartening to be reminded of how many truly original shows have come through Broadway in the past couple of years. I am not a fan of "classic broadway" for anything more than kitch, so I am always paying attention to the "new broadway" sound. That said, someone who commented on the article in question is right-- few groundbreaking musicals recoup their investment, unless then find some commercial niche that they thrive in, like Hamilton. I for one have no interest in seeing Dames at Sea, Anything Goes or the new revival of Cats, but I also know that I am not Broadway's target market. People always complain that young people don't come to the theatre enough, but the heart of the matter is that while young people are itching to see edgy new work, they are not the ones buying the majority of tickets, and so theatre's don't target their interests. While it remains so expensive to put on shows, producers and theaters are still going to need to prioritize recouping investments. If we want more radical theatre, we need to make shows that can be solely sustained by their more enthusiastic and less well funded younger audiences. The Broadway model doesn't support that.
I thought that this article was quite interesting. It is not too often that I hear about the perspective of the producer. I think that it is good to keep in mind that producers, though they may seem they have all of the power in show business, have obligations to many other people. I definitely agree with the author on this article in how stunning works don’t really come around that often. Not all shows can break Broadway like Hamilton has done. Producers know that; so should the general theatre community. I do sometimes think that producers can be a bit more open minded on what actually constitutes “great”, but like the author said, the responsibility doesn’t rest on the producer’s shoulders alone. We as a theatre community need to be more open and welcoming (and fund) more innovative and experimental ideas.
This article has a point but it was probably brought about the wrong way. First of all, the title of the article was total click-bait and I completely fell for it. But that being said, there is an interesting point that was brought up about producers taking risks. Although a lot of musicals that are going on now could be considered risks, I don't feel like that is the most accurate description of them. Fun Home and Hamilton for example. When I think about those musicals, the first thing that comes to mind is not, "will this work?", it's more along he lines of this is the perfect musical for this modern audiences. There are plenty of musicals that are very risky, but he ones listed in the article, in my opinion, are not risky. Fun Home and Hamilton just mark the beginning of a new type of musicals, a rebranding of musicals that is a amazing representation for the directing that theater is going in. It may be a bit strange for a producer to back a musical like this because of how it is so non-traditional, but it's not like there was a huge possibility of it being a flop. The social issues addressed in these musicals are just what people want to see right now, and that should be taken into account.
Post a Comment