More on Musicals

The second reason that I don't like musicals (and again, for the purposes of this post, "don't like" means "prefer straight plays to") is that they frequently run counter to the things that I believe theatre does best, with a few exceptions.

Generally speaking, musicals rely on massive visual spectacle, large casts, extravagant costuming and lighting, and scenic effects above and beyond all bounds of rational restraint. I cite as evidence once again the famous helicopter landing in Miss Saigon, or, if you prefer, the six billion person chorus I've seen assembled for a recent production of Les Miserables. Don't get me wrong, spectacle can be a lot of fun, but it has two problems: First, it costs a hell of a lot of money, which creates high ticket prices, which causes a wide range of less-than-loaded people to avoid theatre altogether (since to them Theatre = Musicals). Second, I've always believed that theatre should be theatre and film should be film, and film absolutely embarrasses theatre when it comes to effective spectacle. Consider the movie "Chicago," for instance. Although I didn't see the stage version, the movie version did not exactly make me want to do so. The impressive visual spectacle of that movie was such that I feel that something would be lost if it was attempted on the stage. As another example, consider how the incredible visuals of "Moulin Rouge" would have fared if reproduced on the stage. Not so well, I suspect, which is why it was a movie only.

But, you say, isn't the live aspect of theatre enough to compensate for its second-rate (compared to film) ability to create visual spectacle? Isn't watching the dancers and seeing the set pieces shift and change some saving grace? Sure, absolutely, if you can afford $150+ for floor seats. Shell out merely $75 a ticket, and you're going to be pretty far removed from the details of coregraphy. You'll have a nice panoramic view of the amazing set, but again, no detail.

I am going to wrap this topic up tonight, because I suspect that it has a relatively limited appeal (commenters on the previous post, I will reply to you tomorrow). One of the best musicals I ever saw was Assassins at Denison University. It is a surreal and darkly comic tale in which successful and would-be presidential assassins from John Wilkes Booth to present day interact with one another and discuss their lives, stories, and motivations. It is wonderfully silly, insightful, and emotionally gripping. It was performed in the round on an extremely minimal stage, thus making it one of the things that I think theatre should be: about the performers, not the spectacle. And the tickets were cheap.

Five plays that you should see instead of a musical:
Proof, by David Auburn
Amadeus, by Peter Shaffer
Drawer Boy, by Michael Healey
Art, by Yasmina Reza (translated by Christopher Hampton)
Copenhagen, by Michael Frayn

Why? Because they are thought-provoking without being obscure. They are difficult without being dark. They are small, intimate stories with wide-reaching implications. They are aesthetically challenging without being inaccessible. They are what I think of when I think of theatre.

But "Guys and Dolls" is still pretty fantastic. Sit down, you're rockin' the boat.