Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Thursday, September 04, 2025
A Highly Subjective List of the (So Far) Best Plays and Musicals of the 21st Century
Broadway & Me: Like all lists, this one says more about the people making the list than it does about the films on the list. But it got me thinking about what a similar list of the best plays and musicals that have opened over the past 25 years might look like.
11 comments:
Jordan G
said...
At first this article really intrigued me, because it would be interesting to see a list of movies that a group of people believe to be the 25 best films in the past 25 years. I was somewhat disappointed though as I continued to read the article, and discovered that the list was created by a group of people who were already heavily involved in the world of movie making and critiquing. I personally would have much rather seen a list of movies that was made from interviewing or even polling a group of random people on the street. I believe that this list would have had less bias when compared to the original group of people who may choose certain movies because they or their friends were a part of said movie. Its like asking a French chef what they think are the best dishes to eat. You would expect that chef to give a list of French dishes, and not a list of what might actually be the best dishes across all culinary styles.
I think that the author does an excellent job at displaying their points and opinions while constantly reminding the reader that this is a highly subjective list all the same. This is only minorly important of course, though throughout articles that I have read throughout these past weeks, it is not uncommon for many writers to find themselves certain in these opinions that they are displaying outward. This is not the main focus of my thoughts though, as something much more interesting lies within the content of the list itself, and that is the stories that are being portrayed through these top picks. While I am unfamiliar with most of these titles, the short blurb about each productions proves quite helpful. Even more compelling is the themes within these titles. It portrays the telling of peoples stories from specific viewpoints and places in time. Sitting with the perspective in another person and telling their story. Now this might seem like an obvious statement, but I enjoy the popularity of these plays and bringing some otherwise neglected stories to life.
At first, I was sure that this article was going to be stupid at best because how can you pick the 10 best shows of the 21st century? That is stating their list like it's a fact when, in actuality, it's an opinion. However, I was pleasantly surprised to find that most of the piece is about how the making of lists like this is a terrible practice. I liked their point about how lists like this tell you more about whoever is making the list than the shows actually on it, because what shows you consider to be the best ones is an incredibly personal take that is unlikely to be the same or even similar for everyone. Taking a look at the list created by this particular author, you can tell there are some recurring themes that they tend to favor more than others. Many of these shows are about familial relationships, and many are about social inequalities. I'd be curious to see some of the lists like this that other people have come up with and compare what some of the more common answers are.
I found this list extremely interesting. I really appreciate the author's approach to this article. The author emphasized many times that this list was just her opinion, and understands that this is not an end all be all. The author chose an extremely wide variety of shows. I have not heard of many of these plays and musicals, however some of them intrigue me. The author chose a very diverse selection of time periods and genres. Particularly Disgraced by Ayad Akhtar interests me! It is about an “assimilated Musilim attorney and his wife in a post-9/11 America that sidestepped all stereotypes”. This play really interests me, because I have never seen anything related to the 9/11 events represented on stage. I also agree with Hamilton being on the list. While I do not believe that Hamilton is Lin-Manuel Miranda’s best work, I personally enjoy In The Heights even more, it transformed Broadway and the way people view Broadway!
I absolutely loved how the author broke down their ranking and emphasized that this is their opinion while also establishing reasoning and defending it. It is so common for there to be articles titled “top 10 ….” and for them to simply be an opinion yet the author to write in a way that suggests that it's a fact (followed by outraged fans to comment on what they forgot to include). Personally, I haven’t done much of a deep dive into any of the pieces that the author listed so I cannot speak to whether or not I agree with them. However, I know for a fact that they are all brilliant and diverse works that deserve to be acknowledged. A bit unrelated (but still kind of related because she mentioned it), I hate how people claim Hamilton is overrated and undeserving of its spot every time it is brought up because people don’t think it is ‘obscure’ enough. However, just as the article said it, this is fully my opinion.
What I enjoyed most about this article was how the author framed their list as personal rather than definitive. That immediately set a tone that made me more interested in their reasoning than in whether or not I “agreed.” I appreciated that the list was not just about the biggest commercial hits or the most widely praised works but instead reflected shows that stayed with the writer emotionally and intellectually. I also liked how the list had a mix of genres and themes. While I personally have little familiarity with most of the works mentioned, the wide variety made it easy for me to find a few that I’m especially interested in exploring further. I also liked that the list included both plays and musicals, because those conversations are sometimes kept separate. While everyone’s “top 10” would look different, I really enjoyed the writer’s perspective on their “top 10,” and it offered a thoughtful reflection on the kinds of theater productions that have defined the 21st century.
I thought this article was interesting and I was curious to see the author's list of top shows. At first I wasn’t sure about the list as it was someone’s personal opinion but the author was able to defend their reasoning. What I thought was most interesting about their list was that they used awards and Tony nominations, and other factors to decide the list, rather than it be purely personal opinion. I have not seen most of the shows on that list but I do like that the author had wanted their list to be diverse and in the end it was without even trying. I was a little surprised that the list only contained shows from 2000 to present as there have most definitely been amazing shows that deserve to be on this list from before the 2000s. The only show on that list that I know anything about is Hamilton, and the rest I have only ever heard of in passing.
This is so interesting to me because I have only ever heard of 1 of those movies on this list. I don’t read the NY times but I am intrigued to see their list compared to the author of this article, and if I will know more. I enjoy that the NY times polled filmmakers for their perspective because I think the masters would know best but also we watch movies based on entertainment levels not necessarily the like camera techniques and other things like that so I wonder if the film makers think about it in the same way that an average person would because they see each little mistake because they have done it for so long. Back to this article, I think the author did good at saying why they thought their movies were top 10 without saying too much, almost leaving us in suspense like we have to go watch it, especially because I haven't seen most before.
As someone within the theatre industry that does not venture out to see a lot of plays and theatre in general despite that which I work on or get a free ticket to, reading this list proved informative for learning new names, plays, and musicals to look out for or seek out in the future. One that did catch by eye was Other Desert Cities as I had the chance to work on it this past summer and definitively agree that under the right circumstances, that play is an absolute work of art. It is engaging to its last minute when all is revealed and grievances are out to bear. But, what was even more interesting is that this list shared no similarity with the NYT’s posted list referenced in the article. This was interesting because I definitely recognized more titles in the NYT’s list, but am more curious about how the NYT’s list was selected and if the popularity of certain plays also weighed into these decisions for the NYT to demonstrate their support behind particular ideas of certain pieces while the blog aims for personal accuracy.
The title of that article caught my attention immediately. I was like hmmm that could go a lot of different ways. The shows on the list were irrelevant to me. I really don’t have any thoughts or opinions on any of them because the only one I recognized is Hamilton. What I thought was interesting was the set up of the list and conversation about how the list says more about the people who wrote it than anything else. I think this is so important especially when it comes to rankings. Unless it is being done based on factual data it is all subjective. Which doesn't mean it is not valuable but it also means it shouldn't be the end all be all. I think this is really important when it comes to things like the tony awards. It is just votes from people that have thoughts and feelings about shows and nothing else.
11 comments:
At first this article really intrigued me, because it would be interesting to see a list of movies that a group of people believe to be the 25 best films in the past 25 years. I was somewhat disappointed though as I continued to read the article, and discovered that the list was created by a group of people who were already heavily involved in the world of movie making and critiquing. I personally would have much rather seen a list of movies that was made from interviewing or even polling a group of random people on the street. I believe that this list would have had less bias when compared to the original group of people who may choose certain movies because they or their friends were a part of said movie. Its like asking a French chef what they think are the best dishes to eat. You would expect that chef to give a list of French dishes, and not a list of what might actually be the best dishes across all culinary styles.
I think that the author does an excellent job at displaying their points and opinions while constantly reminding the reader that this is a highly subjective list all the same. This is only minorly important of course, though throughout articles that I have read throughout these past weeks, it is not uncommon for many writers to find themselves certain in these opinions that they are displaying outward. This is not the main focus of my thoughts though, as something much more interesting lies within the content of the list itself, and that is the stories that are being portrayed through these top picks. While I am unfamiliar with most of these titles, the short blurb about each productions proves quite helpful. Even more compelling is the themes within these titles. It portrays the telling of peoples stories from specific viewpoints and places in time. Sitting with the perspective in another person and telling their story. Now this might seem like an obvious statement, but I enjoy the popularity of these plays and bringing some otherwise neglected stories to life.
At first, I was sure that this article was going to be stupid at best because how can you pick the 10 best shows of the 21st century? That is stating their list like it's a fact when, in actuality, it's an opinion. However, I was pleasantly surprised to find that most of the piece is about how the making of lists like this is a terrible practice. I liked their point about how lists like this tell you more about whoever is making the list than the shows actually on it, because what shows you consider to be the best ones is an incredibly personal take that is unlikely to be the same or even similar for everyone. Taking a look at the list created by this particular author, you can tell there are some recurring themes that they tend to favor more than others. Many of these shows are about familial relationships, and many are about social inequalities. I'd be curious to see some of the lists like this that other people have come up with and compare what some of the more common answers are.
I found this list extremely interesting. I really appreciate the author's approach to this article. The author emphasized many times that this list was just her opinion, and understands that this is not an end all be all. The author chose an extremely wide variety of shows. I have not heard of many of these plays and musicals, however some of them intrigue me. The author chose a very diverse selection of time periods and genres. Particularly Disgraced by Ayad Akhtar interests me! It is about an “assimilated Musilim attorney and his wife in a post-9/11 America that sidestepped all stereotypes”. This play really interests me, because I have never seen anything related to the 9/11 events represented on stage. I also agree with Hamilton being on the list. While I do not believe that Hamilton is Lin-Manuel Miranda’s best work, I personally enjoy In The Heights even more, it transformed Broadway and the way people view Broadway!
I absolutely loved how the author broke down their ranking and emphasized that this is their opinion while also establishing reasoning and defending it. It is so common for there to be articles titled “top 10 ….” and for them to simply be an opinion yet the author to write in a way that suggests that it's a fact (followed by outraged fans to comment on what they forgot to include). Personally, I haven’t done much of a deep dive into any of the pieces that the author listed so I cannot speak to whether or not I agree with them. However, I know for a fact that they are all brilliant and diverse works that deserve to be acknowledged. A bit unrelated (but still kind of related because she mentioned it), I hate how people claim Hamilton is overrated and undeserving of its spot every time it is brought up because people don’t think it is ‘obscure’ enough. However, just as the article said it, this is fully my opinion.
What I enjoyed most about this article was how the author framed their list as personal rather than definitive. That immediately set a tone that made me more interested in their reasoning than in whether or not I “agreed.” I appreciated that the list was not just about the biggest commercial hits or the most widely praised works but instead reflected shows that stayed with the writer emotionally and intellectually. I also liked how the list had a mix of genres and themes. While I personally have little familiarity with most of the works mentioned, the wide variety made it easy for me to find a few that I’m especially interested in exploring further. I also liked that the list included both plays and musicals, because those conversations are sometimes kept separate. While everyone’s “top 10” would look different, I really enjoyed the writer’s perspective on their “top 10,” and it offered a thoughtful reflection on the kinds of theater productions that have defined the 21st century.
I thought this article was interesting and I was curious to see the author's list of top shows. At first I wasn’t sure about the list as it was someone’s personal opinion but the author was able to defend their reasoning. What I thought was most interesting about their list was that they used awards and Tony nominations, and other factors to decide the list, rather than it be purely personal opinion. I have not seen most of the shows on that list but I do like that the author had wanted their list to be diverse and in the end it was without even trying. I was a little surprised that the list only contained shows from 2000 to present as there have most definitely been amazing shows that deserve to be on this list from before the 2000s. The only show on that list that I know anything about is Hamilton, and the rest I have only ever heard of in passing.
-Natalie M
This is so interesting to me because I have only ever heard of 1 of those movies on this list. I don’t read the NY times but I am intrigued to see their list compared to the author of this article, and if I will know more. I enjoy that the NY times polled filmmakers for their perspective because I think the masters would know best but also we watch movies based on entertainment levels not necessarily the like camera techniques and other things like that so I wonder if the film makers think about it in the same way that an average person would because they see each little mistake because they have done it for so long. Back to this article, I think the author did good at saying why they thought their movies were top 10 without saying too much, almost leaving us in suspense like we have to go watch it, especially because I haven't seen most before.
As someone within the theatre industry that does not venture out to see a lot of plays and theatre in general despite that which I work on or get a free ticket to, reading this list proved informative for learning new names, plays, and musicals to look out for or seek out in the future. One that did catch by eye was Other Desert Cities as I had the chance to work on it this past summer and definitively agree that under the right circumstances, that play is an absolute work of art. It is engaging to its last minute when all is revealed and grievances are out to bear. But, what was even more interesting is that this list shared no similarity with the NYT’s posted list referenced in the article. This was interesting because I definitely recognized more titles in the NYT’s list, but am more curious about how the NYT’s list was selected and if the popularity of certain plays also weighed into these decisions for the NYT to demonstrate their support behind particular ideas of certain pieces while the blog aims for personal accuracy.
The title of that article caught my attention immediately. I was like hmmm that could go a lot of different ways. The shows on the list were irrelevant to me. I really don’t have any thoughts or opinions on any of them because the only one I recognized is Hamilton. What I thought was interesting was the set up of the list and conversation about how the list says more about the people who wrote it than anything else. I think this is so important especially when it comes to rankings. Unless it is being done based on factual data it is all subjective. Which doesn't mean it is not valuable but it also means it shouldn't be the end all be all. I think this is really important when it comes to things like the tony awards. It is just votes from people that have thoughts and feelings about shows and nothing else.
Post a Comment