19,659 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 13, 2017 11:56:35 GMT
It's phenomenon that I can't think of having a parallel in any other industry or context. The same piece of work being performed eight times a week in the same place for decades.
I'm putting this in Musicals because that's where most of these examples (offenders? culprits?) are, but I haven't forgotten The Mousetrap and its sixty plus years or Woman In Black of course.
So my question is, does there come a point where a production stops being a piece of art/theatre and instead turns into a tourist attraction operated by a team of expert "technicians" like a ride at Disneyland, where the actors and crew are just the people making it happen? Can anything new ever really be brought to a piece like Phantom or Les Mis after it's being performed live for thirty years? Or even Wicked after a decade? Yes I know different performers come and go and supposedly put their "spin" on it, but when you see POTO and the original characterisation of Michael Crawford being being replicated by everyone whose performed it since, are they really adding anything other than a different voice? In the greater scheme of things the changes that the individual performers can bring are minuscule in relation to the behemoth that they're performing in.
And the machine supporting what we see on stage, where the exact same thing has been done behind the scenes every day for thirty years, same make up, same costumes, lighting, sound. Isn't this absolute death to creativity and art?
Should this even be called "theatre"?
|
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Aug 13, 2017 12:05:30 GMT
Deep stuff.
Yes, I think it's theatre. It's very commmercial theatre, but theatre and unprecedented in many ways. Your points are valid, but keep in mind that the decade+ run is rather rare these days, and also rather new in the overall scheme of things in the history of theatre. It certainly did not exist to this level pre-Mackintosh/Webber era, and it's rare that it does now with contemporary shows sans Wicked and Chicago.
I think the key here is quality, and I think for shows like Les Mis, Phantom and Wicked, there's diffidently a great deal of quality control. I purposely left out Chicago. But quality control is the key word and other business jargon is applicable..yes it's art, but it's also business and the perfect marriage of art to create a profitable business.
Interestingly, the whole premise of Mackintosh revamping his shows is to bring a new spin and spirit to otherwise iconic pieces that are too sacrosanct to reproduce in another format. While I truly think that his case is more of a business case than an artistic one, I think it addresses some of your concerns about it being more machine than musical.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2017 12:14:44 GMT
To quote the old saying "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", I think the same principle applies to theatre. Just because its been running for 30 years does make it any less meaningful for an audience member experiencing it for the first time. Is the writing of Shakespeare any less meaningful because its been read and performed for centuries? Dedicated Star Wars fans will watch and re-watch the episodes repeatedly, does it make the experience for them any less meaningful when its the 100th time? The same applies for books. At what point do you differentiation between religious belief and a machine going through the motions of a service... (well lets not go there specifically!)
Theatre [to me] is not necessarily about who or how its made its about the emotion response it provokes in me, the beholder. The ability to sit and watch Phantom for the 30th time and still become heartbroken at the culmination of the finale for me is what makes that experience special. Even more so knowing Im experiencing in essence that same original product that was produced decades ago. In the same way that people will watch The Empire Strikes Back for the gazillionth time and still enjoy that original experience, In the same way a priest can read from the Bible, having studied it countless times and take away new reason and meaning.
|
|
114 posts
|
Post by showbizkid on Aug 13, 2017 12:55:28 GMT
For the first people that see a show even in its 17th year it is opening night. Of course it is still theatre!!! Just a very successful show that has an open ended run do to popular ticket sales. In this social media age shows can become cult hits online such as Hamilton or Harry Potter and these become multi billion dollar hits and huge brands. Lion King is another example. 7.6 billion dollars later - it is still theatre.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2017 13:17:30 GMT
It's an element which Peter Brook, in 'The Empty Space', referred to as part of what constitutes 'deadly theatre'. The figure he put on it that it is about five years before a production becomes too divorced from its creation, living on as a sort of animated corpse. I'd say that length of time is about right and, at that point, you start to see what is essentially a museum piece. New audiences start to respond to the reputation of a show instead, being satisfied, disappointed or, often, merely just experiencing it as another slot on the itinerary. Repeat audiences have the benefit of remembering what it was that made them want to return and sometimes can keep doing so, feeding off the memory and its relation to what they see.
You do need to differentiate between text and production. Text endures as long as it remains open to interpretation, that means purely the words spoken and the barest actions. West Side Story endures as a text, for example, but reproducing the original production is 'deadly'. A production wholly or partly reproduced is an exercise in nostalgia, which is fine for those who want that but a dead end street in the long run. For that, the Doyly Carte G & S productions of yore were a perfect example.
Film/TV is another matter entirely, given that you essentially have the same experience as the original audience, divorced only by the changes in time/manners/customs etc. It's also a much more fitting home for nostalgics because of that. Film/TV is an entry into a separate, completed world whilst the world of the stage is only completed in front of the audience. As such it is the audience that makes theatre age less well, we have moved on in our lives so that two way 'conversation' between stage and audience keeps disintegrating the longer that a production carries on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2017 13:42:58 GMT
The mistake in the original premise of this thread, in my opinion, is that it takes into account neither cast nor audience.
Even for a show that is 30 years old, the vast majority of the audience seeing it at each performance will be seeing it for the first time. So the show is as much theatre to them as any show is the first time you see it - the length the show has run makes no difference whatsoever to that.
And the cast changes fairly frequently in any show. Yes, some people may stay for years, but each year you will have a group of people who are completely new to the material, or returning to it after a break in some cases, putting their own spin on it. Take Wicked, for example - every Glinda puts their own quirks and mannerisms into Popular, and some even change their performance over the course of their run. I don't see how that is any less theatre than the cast of a new work exploring it for the first time, and it's a bit offensive towards new casts to essentially suggest they're incapable of bringing any creativity to established roles. The only difference is that there are example performances to look back on where a show is a long-runner, but that doesn't dictate how any individual plays the role. If it did, Hamlet would have been played exactly the same for nearly half a millennium, but it hasn't been.
I personally think it's a little snobbish to think that only new work is theatre and that the older works have less value. Sometimes they're much better and more entertaining than some of the rubbish churned out today, much like a lot of classical music, which has also stood the test of time. It's all a matter of opinion in the end as to whether long runners are a good thing (and not all long runners may be the same in that regard), but it's a matter of fact that they are all theatrical works.
|
|
19,659 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 13, 2017 14:01:51 GMT
The characterisation of Elphaba does not change. They all copy the original, just as with my example of Michael Crawford's Phantom (because I did take account of the cast in my original post). The occasional riff is completely irrelevant to most people. Riffing a song is not giving a new characterisation.
It's no accident that in the publicity shots for Wicked they just plonk the new actors head onto some previous actors body. And that pretty much sums up the point I was making in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2017 14:08:03 GMT
Riffing a song is not giving a new characterisation. Perhaps not, but it is musically creative, and probably on occasion improvisational and responsive to the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2017 14:10:43 GMT
It's phenomenon that I can't think of having a parallel in any other industry or context. The same piece of work being performed eight times a week in the same place for decades. Isn't this a bit like asking if the Mona Lisa is still art because she's been hanging on the same wall for 220 years? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2017 14:19:33 GMT
and it's a bit offensive towards new casts to essentially suggest they're incapable of bringing any creativity to established roles. It's not a matter of capability, it's a matter of permission. |
|
19,659 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 13, 2017 14:22:26 GMT
Riffing a song is not giving a new characterisation. Perhaps not, but it is musically creative, and probably on occasion improvisational and responsive to the moment. Or possibly a desperate cry for help because they're so bored. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2017 14:34:04 GMT
The characterisation of Elphaba does not change. They all copy the original, just as with my example of Michael Crawford's Phantom It depends how much input the original cast had into the characterisation. But is there really any significant difference? To use Phantom as an example, is there any real difference between a new Phantom being directed by the original instructions handed down from cast to cast and a new Phantom being given the same instructions directly by the director of a new production? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2017 14:41:43 GMT
The only time an actor can create a new characterisation is if they are in a new, and different, production. Otherwise, they have to follow blocking, relationships, the wearing of costumes and so many other things, that stop them. Yes, there are subtle differences but within very tight parameters.
In term of new productions poor directors may try to copy what was done in previous productions with similarly stunted results.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2017 14:54:43 GMT
The characterisation of Elphaba does not change. They all copy the original, just as with my example of Michael Crawford's Phantom (because I did take account of the cast in my original post). The occasional riff is completely irrelevant to most people. Riffing a song is not giving a new characterisation. It's no accident that in the publicity shots for Wicked they just plonk the new actors head onto some previous actors body. And that pretty much sums up the point I was making in the first place. I disagree. Using the Phantom example, current Phantom, Ben Forster's interpretation of the character is wildly different from Michael Crawford's. Crawford's Phantom was a broken man, a genius but a man purely motivated and obsessed with love. Ben Forster has taken upon his performance a real emphasis of the mental distortion of the character, this can be seen by his repeated head hitting during the final lair scene amongst other differences. As if to denote a tick that someone with real mental issues might have. This is a characterisation I personally disagree with and as a result really don't like BF's interpretation of the Phantom. Furthermore in the ~20 years I've been seeing this show up until around 2 years ago I really disliked the character Raoul. No matter who played him, I didn't like the character. This changed when I saw Nadim Naaman's Raoul in the current cast. Nadmin brings an innocence that I've not ever seen in Raoul before. The bolshy-ness is toned down and at points he shows an empathy to the Phantom that most actors exchange a bravado for. Its interesting that two notable changes to two principal characters has happened during the same cast, but had these actors been playing carbon copies of the original cast then these interpretations wouldn't be seen in their roles. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2017 15:08:25 GMT
The characterisation of Elphaba does not change. They all copy the original, just as with my example of Michael Crawford's Phantom (because I did take account of the cast in my original post). The occasional riff is completely irrelevant to most people. Riffing a song is not giving a new characterisation. It's no accident that in the publicity shots for Wicked they just plonk the new actors head onto some previous actors body. And that pretty much sums up the point I was making in the first place. The characterisation of Elphaba does actually change. Some actresses choose to portray her as angry with her treatment throughout, even in Act 1. Others choose to play her as more resigned, naive even. There is also quite a difference between how young and immature she is portrayed in Act 1 by different actresses. Similarly, how much Glinda is portrayed as pained and clearly struggling with emotions in the opening number varies. It's a matter of degree of course, but it is there. Anyway, clearly we're going to have to agree to disagree, because I don't think changes have to be huge to count as different - sometimes subtle changes are the most effective of all, and that most definitely is art, and to me in many respects is theatre at its finest - finding something new and interesting and different without losing the integrity of the piece. I don't know of anything where subtle changes are not permitted - nothing is completely stagnant, in fact it can't be because performers' voices, intonation, expressions and movement styles are different, that's human nature. Anyway, I still think your premise is flawed - on your argument Shakespeare is no longer theatre because it's been around so long (and let's face it there have been many very similar productions of Shakespeare plays) but I assume you didn't mean that. And also the logical extension of your argument is that you're essentially saying all performers are akin to robots, which again as a matter of human nature is simply not true. As far as I'm concerned it's all a matter of choosing to look for and appreciate subtle changes. |
|
19,659 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 13, 2017 15:19:09 GMT
There isn't a production of any Shakespeare play that's been running for a decade though is there?
And, just to note, I'm not seeking agreement. I was posing a question in my original post. I'm late to the party, if these productions had closed after a year or even 5 years I would never have seen them. I wasn't questioning whether they should be on, I wouldn't deny audiences from seeing them. I just wonder if theyve become something other than theatre.
Was that cut down version of POTO in Vegas theatre? Or was it an 'entertainment' of some sort?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2017 15:34:44 GMT
Was that cut down version of POTO in Vegas theatre? Or was it an 'entertainment' of some sort? Hands down that was cash making exercise. Spectacle, as they called it. Arguably, by definition, it was theatre. An audience went into an auditorium and watched a performance from actors. But its sole purpose, like the rest of Vegas' attractions was profit through entertainment. Your point does raise a question... Where do you draw the line between art (theatre) and business? Is any musical theatre 'art' or is it all entertainment? Why do people write shows... to make art, to make a point, to entertain the masses or to line their pockets with silver and gold? |
|
4,361 posts
|
Post by shady23 on Aug 13, 2017 16:12:38 GMT
I often see touring shows that I think are "ok" then I immediately forget about. Months later I hear they're at the other end of the country and am amazed they are still doing this show, almost every day, every week but in a different part of the country each week. I struggle to imagine how they stay so motivated and how they still make the shows look so fresh night after night after night when they must be bored to pieces of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Aug 13, 2017 18:01:53 GMT
It's interesting that age has streamlined Les Miserables from it's original epic proprotions - some of this must be due to economics, different venues, getting it under three hours for orchestra's unions, and some artistic fine tuning, but mostly economics I suspect. but sometimes a piece of business originated by a certain actor or director get passed down and does indeed gets so far divorced from the original intention to be redundant. But mention of the D'Oyly Carte - they certainly preserved the operas and no doubt saved them, but also damaged them. Thankfully due to inventive productions now the operas are alive and kicking.
|
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Aug 13, 2017 18:04:57 GMT
Things also evolve...Mme Thenardier for example. The character is now a far cry from the slim, darkly nuanced humour of Sue Jane Tanner to the hugely corpulent pantomime caricature a couple of years back.
|
|
1,561 posts
|
Post by showtoones on Aug 13, 2017 18:13:20 GMT
Was that cut down version of POTO in Vegas theatre? Or was it an 'entertainment' of some sort? Hands down that was cash making exercise. Spectacle, as they called it. Arguably, by definition, it was theatre. An audience went into an auditorium and watched a performance from actors. But its sole purpose, like the rest of Vegas' attractions was profit through entertainment. Your point does raise a question... Where do you draw the line between art (theatre) and business? Is any musical theatre 'art' or is it all entertainment? Why do people write shows... to make art, to make a point, to entertain the masses or to line their pockets with silver and gold? All commercial theatre has an aim of being art, whether in Vegas, West Wnd, London, etc. the POTO in Vegas was commercial theatre thst added the element of spectacle to compete with other Vegas offerings. Just as Elphaba flying, or the helicopter in Miss Saigon, these are put in for the wow factor. Vegas shows for instance are made for long runs and most are made specifically for the theatres they are in so they can't tour by definition. I defy anyone to say that Cirque du Soleil isn't art. If art by definition causes emotion, then crying at the show O in Vegas is a visceral response. |
|
4,973 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Aug 13, 2017 19:01:05 GMT
West End is a vast landscape of theatres that has room for traditional shows and good new shows. My contention isn't about getting rid of old shows, that have put millions into the economy and provided stable work for ACTORS and theatre staff.
With the population set to grow from 8.2m to 10m by 2030, there is a good strong argument that the Weat End could do with more new theatres. I would argue for a couple of mid-size houses like they have on Broadway, however build better more comfortable theatres unlike Broadway and more like personal favourites of mine the Lowry of the Wales Milenium Centre, this is what London needs!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by singularsensation10 on Aug 13, 2017 19:10:26 GMT
Interesting questions being asked and discussed here.
At what point does a piece cross the line over to one of the shows you are talking about - even a show that is on a limited run for 6 months is still being performed exactly the same 8 times a week, and if an understudy goes on they are not (in your words) changing the characterisation. So at what point does it cross the line? 1 year, 10 years, 25+ years?
|
|
|
|
Post by lolli on Aug 13, 2017 22:31:34 GMT
Theatre is always an act of repetition in some form - whether it's a week's run on the fringe, or 10 years in the West End. The quality of that repetition is to do with the people involved, not the length of the run.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2017 22:51:23 GMT
A friend of mine was the Phantom stand by a few years back and he was told to deliver the exact same performance that Michael Crawford did. Notes couldnt be sustained for longer, they had to be sung a certain way, the same emphasis on certain words. He wasnt allowed to put his own work into it.
He left at the earliest opportunity.
Still, it looks good on his cv.
|
|
