Theater | Pittsburgh | Pittsburgh City Paper: It’s lonely being an arts and entertainment writer, which is why we sometimes drag our loved ones to the shows we cover. In this case, my husband, Ian, accompanied me to The Book of Merman, CLO Cabaret’s production of the Ethel Merman-infused parody of The Book of Mormon, now playing at Greer Cabaret Theater. But right before the show it dawned on me — my husband has zero familiarity with Ethel Merman or The Book of Mormon.
8 comments:
I thought this article was very funny. And also I found it very interesting. So rarely do we ever read reviews of shows written by people who don’t enjoy theatre or don’t go to theatre often. So it was really interesting to hear what the everyday person thought of a show very much geared towards a specific audience. Although I do understand where he is coming from saying that a good show would be understandable to anyone no matter how much background knowledge they have of the concept of the show, I do think that some shows are written for a very specific or niche audience and that is okay. If the only goal of the show is to make money, then maybe a niche topic isn’t the best idea, but non-profit theatre’s goals aren’t to make money. I am not sure the intention of The Book of Merman but I do think the producers knew that this show wouldn’t attract every type of audience. And the husband of the entertainment writer would never have seen the show on his own accord, so I have a feeling other people with similar knowledge of theatre as him are not going to go see this show, and that is okay.
My favorite reviews of anything is by people who have no idea what they are going into. They are always so hilarious and pure. I have seen on twitter like, reviews of the cats movie by people who had no history with the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical and the mortification and utter bewilderment is hysterical. These kinds of reviews are often done comedically, but they actually provide very honest and read feedback- because there is no prior bias. And people always say stuff like, oh describe Hogwarts to somebody who's never heard of Harry Potter or whatever, and I think you can actually measure how well the story is done by how an unexposed person interprets it and what they walk away understanding. Intrinsic material and information is to some extent, more critical than extrinsic material. A viewer should still be able to understand the whole story if they had no background information whatsoever.
Wow. This was….scathing. I think this article is a useful reminder for theatre people that sometimes we dig a little too far deep into ourselves and forget that there is a paying (hopefully) audience that we have to entertain. It applies to other forms of art as well. Maybe the most difficult task that an artist must take on is the dual mandate of both exploring a concept with their art that is intellectually interesting to them, or profound, and also to make it accessible and relevant to a large enough audience that they can afford to keep doing it and/or create a public good. Maybe this theatre is just thriving and can afford to play to themselves and to a tiny niche audience (or maybe that niche is bigger than I think it is), but it seems rather doubtful. Art is fun, and art is useful, when other people get it too. Otherwise, we're just teenagers writing poems that nobody else gets just to get our feelings out. Which is fine, until your poem is a full scale theatrical production and takes a hundred people and ten thousand dollars. Then it's less fine.
This was a very weird article to attempt to process. I am personally not a huge fan of parody shows, but I know they do have a purpose and an audience, however limited. I think this article does bring up a good point of accessibility for these kinds of shows. Putting a huge amount of effort into a production for such a limited audience is a strange idea, and truly pretty impractical. I feel like I possess a pretty well-rounded and informed view of theatre and theatre history, but I have certainly been to shows where a majority of the references have gone completely over my head, and the shows that rely on the background knowledge of the audience have a much more difficult time of being successful than the shows that rely on background knowledge for details and specific jokes that enhance the experience of the audience, while still guaranteeing accessibility for the general public.
Protest music has been around about as long as protest and music. The benefit of using songs from a musical is that they are well known. Not only by the protesters but by the people who are watching it go by. The song is successful as protest music because it answers some questions about protesting. 1) who are you and 2) why are you protesting. For the people in Les-Mis, they are angry [people] and they are singing because they do not want to be slaves to the government. This song reminds me of a protest song by Holly Near that answers the same questions the lyrics are “we are gentle angry people and we are singing for our lives' '. This song has similar answers to Les-Mis. Other less popular protest songs usually focus around a singular issue and are less general. In the case of these two songs they can be adapted to fit many protest’s needs, even if we don't agree with those needs.
Rarely do the reviews of a show become good entertainment in and of themselves. I can only think of one other example (Cats). I love how this author included an outside perspective in her review. I think of reviewers as someone who has a background knowledge of theatre and its customs. That being said they are definitely biased because they have to like theatre enough to have a job where they have to see a bunch of shows. Their reviews provide a review with context. They know it was bad because they have seen good. I wonder what it would be like if every review was from someone like the author's spouse. I think it would allow for a wider range of reviews but I think it would also change the focus of theatre-making. I know when most non-theatre people go see a large scale show they are often first enamored with the spectacle of it all. I wonder if there would be more focus on the spectacle in that case. In the future, I think it would be cool to have two-part reviews that showcase a larger range of perspectives.
I thought this article was very entertaining and also made good points about the accessibility of theatre to non-theatre people. The enjoyment of watching a parody show is in getting the references, knowing what is ‘supposed’ to be happening and seeing it instead fall apart, and in seeing something you’re already familiar with reimagined in a different, usually humorous, way. Watching a parody without being familiar with the source material is therefore not the same experience, as demonstrated by the husband in the interview, especially when the source is not widely known - The Book of Mormon is fairly adaptable due to the basic premise of the plot being simple, but the references to Ethel Merman much less so, especially to a younger audience (I had never heard of her before learning about this show). Like other people have said, I think we need to be aware of our audience during the production process, and make sure that if the show that is being produced is extremely niche, that we are prepared for that in terms of audience and that it should be advertised as such.
Though I have not seen The Book of Merman nor The Book of Mormon, I think this article clearly illustrates how non-theatre people react to busy, lively, and random musicals. I often describe musicals as a type of theatre that has a low barrier for entry. Even if you don’t like the plot, all other aspects such as musical numbers, costumes, and lighting would keep you entertained. However, there are people who literally get lost and end up overwhelmed, or in the worst case bored, in the middle of the show. They would come to me after the show and ask what the show was about. Some “theatre people” would tell them that there are no right or wrong answer and whatever you felt is the theatre experience. However, that is not the answer they seek. It is often difficult for theatre people to stand on non-theatre people’s point of view, because theatre requires the combination of common sense and artistic sense. I believe it is very important for creators and producers to obtain the point of view to make the theatre accessible.
Post a Comment