Spectacle: A Musical Theatre Story

Many theatre critics claim that the craft of writing musicals has declined considerably with the advent of technology dependent mega-musicals. Certainly spectacle and gimmickry serve to distract audiences from glaring gaps in the storylines of such musicals as Phantom of the Opera. Nevertheless, producers claim that they are saving a dying art form by introducing innovative technology.

Although I do not believe that the craft of writing a musical is on its decline, I do believe however, it is essential to have spectacle to compete with the fast paced society we live in today. We live in a world where we can get anything at the touch of a button. People have seen and done practically everything nowadays, so it is just what the producers have to do in order to keep up with what the public demands. In the early 20^th century Broadway had little to compete with in terms of entertainment. It would seem now with the advent of technology and movies, Broadway is struggling to keep afloat.

If this is the case, Broadway needs to keep up with the technology to introduce spectacle into theatres. Many have come up with the idea of using movies as a back bone for musical theatre. Play writers have come up with a way to compete with the movies by introducing old movies as musicals. As stated in Back Stage magazine.

"Check out Broadways resent offerings-from 'The Producers' to 'The Full Monty' to 'Bells Are Ringing' to '42^nd Street.' Arguably, 'Beauty and the Beast' and 'The Lion King' were also born of the Big Screen (those two mega-hits spawned by animated flicks).So why now? Does the trend reflect a dearth of original material, a mood of nostalgia or just plain old-fashioned calculation? Put another way: Is there the belief that familiar and beloved material will bring in the crowds?Stewart F. Land, a producer of 'Thoroughly Modern Millie,' believes that the phenomenon is born of all of the above.'Plays have dried up as a source for musicals,' he asserts. 'Until this year, original plays on Broadway were an anathema. And most Off-Broadway plays wouldn't work as musicals...Movies have become our dime store novels. They are proven hits with a built-in audience. And if enough time has passed since the movie came out, there's also the element of Nostalgia.'" (Back Stage July 13^th, 2001 pg. 5)

So it is true that producers are trying to come up with "new" and exciting ways to promote Broadway. But is it distracting from the playwriting itself? Although I believe it is crucial to have spectacle in shows nowadays to compete with Hollywood's "Big Screen" movies, I do not believe it should deter from the substance of a play.

With any writing you need to build a sense of the characters, you need to have conflict, and then resolve that conflict. You need to have the sense of characters in a show for the audience to sympathize or empathize to achieve an emotional depth with the leading characters. An audience does not want to watch lifeless gnomes; they want to see a character that they can relate to in their own life. You need to have conflict because without that, a show would be boring. In life people do not go through a day without daily struggles. There is always something that causes you to fight for what you want, nothing in life comes easy and this is what an audience wants to see. They want to see the Americans and Puerto Ricans battling it out for territory in the west side of New York City, they want to see Bohemians in the East Village struggling with AIDS and love. People love to watch drama because they can relate to it in their own lives. Finally, you need to have a resolution because without it you have no ending and the audience will have no closure and will leave the theatre very confused and frustrated. You need to let the audience know what happens...do the Americans rise up and beat the Puerto Ricans in one last final brawl? Do the Bohemians of the East Village die of AIDS because they are all having sex with each other? This is what a writer must do to have story line. Without it a musical would be a bunch of pretty songs put together by chance in a Revue.

Unlike West Side Story and Rent, Phantom of the Opera does have glaring gaps in the story line. But that should not be the case because it was possible to write a decent book without the use of spectacle. I believe that Andrew Lloyd Webber was not fully aware of these gaps at the time of writing this musical, but there is nothing to change it now. People will love this musical until the next hit on Broadway. The Musical Cats was the beginning of the mega musical where drama was replaced with spectacle.

"... Its lack of action, redundant songs, and pop-rock music caused many theatergoers to walk out, but its awesome set, surround-sound, and energetic cast convinced many people that they'd got their money's worth" (Musical a Grand Tour pg. 478).

So it would seem that recent play writers have lost the ability to write a good book. Musicals like Cats, Phantom, Les Miserables, and Miss Saigon all received bad reviews when they first came out. So why is it that these musicals are such a big success? There are several reasons for this. "First, critics are increasingly out of step with popular opinion and mass response. Mass popular culture has moved to the center of the stage because it has the largest group of consumers, while art has moved out to the fringes. Second, there will always be a hit musical on Broadway, and if the critics can't find one the audience will. Big musicals are more and more like the circus. You don't need critics to weigh this year's pachyderms. Third, producer Cameron Macintosh demonstrated that audiences respond better to easily digestible publicity than to essays." (Musical a Grand Tour pg. 484)

Producer Cameron Macintosh believes that it is publicity that makes the show popular, and people do not respond well to long drawn out "meaningful" plays. It does seem to be the case in today's society. I myself am working on the show Urinetown where in the first scene it discusses that too much exposition can kill a show. Has this become the new Broadway? Have we as a society become so dim that we have to have things spelled out to us? I am not saying this is a bad strategy. Composers Mark Hollman and Greg Kotis are very smart and they notice what Broadway is becoming and they make a musical about how ridiculous it all really is. So if it is publicity that makes the show, then I believe the show today getting the most publicity is, Wicked. I asked a good friend of mine Jennifer Sessions, a Graduate of Wayne State's theatre department, to see what she thinks about Wicked and all the spectacle and publicity it has been given.

"I thought it was a creative idea, but what really makes that show is that it's entirely spectacle. Then you have shows like Spelling Bee that have genuine plots and William Finn has a style of his very own that just adds to it but, it's a small cast w/little technically. Yet Wicked will be around much longer then spelling bee for sure because the seats are entirely filled with theatre goers that appreciate the art. Their also filled w/tourists that want to come see Wicked because they're only seeing one show in NY."

"Do you think that writing is a lost art?"

"No, I think there's a lukewarm trend going thru some current shows of having much technically and little substance-wise but, I don't think it's 'taking over Broadway' and clearly, judging by the shows nominated and receiving Tony's this year, it has no longevity. I mean, you could say that back in the day "The Ziegfield Follies" were the exact same way"

"So you think "The Ziegfield Follies" relate to today's Wicked?"

"I think you could compare the 2 easily, but then also take into consideration the longevity of shows like Showboat and West Side Story that are so famous because of the beautiful scores. You can also talk about how advances in technology could be considered a different and innovative art in themselves. There's a lot of angles you can take on this, I think you should review both and then decide if elaborate = artistic"

She does come up with a very good point, does elaborate equal artistic? I decided to hunt for the answers and see what critics have to say for Broadway shows. The following excerpts from four articles in Back Stage magazine should illustrate my point that elaborate does not always equal artistic.
Pacific Overtures"Another drawback was the audience having to switch attention between stage and supertitles, lessening the impact of Sondheim's brilliantly ironic and luminous lyrics."(Back Stage July 19^th 2002 pg 48)

I have a hard time with this one, but it makes a good point. Supertitles may be necessary but only if it doesn't interfere with the music and or the acting. Although I have never seen Pacific Overtures, I have seen many other of Sondheim's shows and I know that when Sondheim writes the lyrics, it's often not about content, it's about a play on words. So adding Supertitles to any of his shows would be unnecessary.

"Read My Hips may have been artistic director Marie Hale's idea of a rollicking send-off, but the piece was anything but the jazzy, fun romp the title promised. The Emphasis was on dancers stripping down-end-ing up in midriffs and kneepads-set to a battering musical score and featuring a lot of grinding of the pelvis. Bottom line: And then what?"(Back Stage May 3^rd 2002 pg. 48)

Although this last review is a dance review and most dance is an abstract art form. It shows that it went way over what the original intent was and left the audience confused. You might say that The Ziegfeld Follies were the same way, but this is how it differs: The Ziegfeld Follies were lavish Revues, something in between later Broadway shows and a Vaudeville variety show. Its main purpose was to feature beautiful and talented girls. Many of the girls are still famous today and got their start by premiering in the Follies, for example Fanny Brice and Billie Burke. Eddie Cantor, Bert Williams, Will Rogers, Ruth Etting, Helen Morgan, Marilyn Miller, W.C. Fields, Ed Wynn, Nora Bayes were among other stars that got their start in the Follies. So The Follies was a type of a Variety show. The main purpose of which is to "dazzle" the audience with the use of spectacle.

Perhaps spectacle started with the advent of technology, but we can clearly see that spectacle has been around for centuries. Spectacle has been dated back to the Renaissance and even further back to Roman times. "Since no theatre in modern history has depended on production technique to dazzle its audience as heavily as the contemporary musical theatre of Broadway, and no literature has required the smooth engineering of numerous sets, props, virtuoso lighting, and costumes within the libretto of the musical, the debt owed by the American musical theatre to the architects, directors, and patrons of the humanist theatre is enormous...The spectacles of shifting scenery, special effects, and mechanical tricks within the proscenium arch would forever after enhance the audience's enjoyment." (Musical: A Grand Tour pg. 38)

In conclusion, I do not believe the craft of writing musicals is on its decline. Although, it might seem so in recent history with poorly written musicals such as Phantom of the Opera. There are, however, many shows such at Rent, and Spelling Bee that are wonderfully written. There is one thing I know for sure, and that is the advent of technology is not to blame for poorly written musicals. Spectacle has been around for a very long time and it's just another art form to entertain the masses. I believe we should embrace this new era of technology and enjoy it for what it truly is.

Bibliography

Flinn, Denny Martin. Musical! A Grand Tour. Belmont: Wadsworth Group/Thomson Learning, 1997

Goldman, Phyllis. "Ballet Florida." Back Stage May 3-9, 2002: 48

Horwitz, Simi. "Musicals Based on Movies: A Proliferation (With More to Come)." Back Stage July 13-19: 5

Isaac, Dan. "36 Views." Back Stage April 12-18, 2002: 56

Rosenberg, David A. "Pacific Overtures." Back Stage July 19-25, 2002: 48

Sessions, Jennifer. Wayne State Graduate. November 16^th 2005

Wood, Mark Dundas. "Julius Caesar." Back Stage October 4-10, 2002: 56