|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2017 22:59:06 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? Plus, isn't the joy of theatre that a show will never be the same two nights running, no matter how hard anyone tries to replicate the experience? The audience will always bring different energies, as will different cast members, and that's before you start accounting for variables like things going wrong, or world current affairs affecting perception (I understand a minor line in Twelfth Night became extraordinarily popular during the BSE crisis). If we were happy to settle for flawlessly identical repetition, we'd be chatting away on Movie Board, not Theatre Board. |
|
578 posts
|
Post by michalnowicki on Aug 14, 2017 9:10:39 GMT
Should this even be called "theatre"? For me, yes. There will always be someone for whom the big "money machine" will be their first theatre experience and they may fall in love with it and continue their theatre adventure. Wicked was my first West End experience. When I saw it, it was already running for 4 years in London, but it was "a first" for me. I am really happy that musicals get a chance to be economically successful. Money makes the world go around. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2017 10:20:09 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. Whilst I've argued otherwise with reference to Ben Forster's performance as the Phantom, this does raise another point. If the principals (or any of the cast) perform don't perform their respective roles verbatim per the original cast, can they still market the production as "The Brilliant Original"? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2017 10:23:40 GMT
Michelangelo's David has stood in a gallery in Florence since 1873, unchanged and original. Does the duration of its stay in a gallery make it any less 'art'?
Edit. Ooop Just noticed the same point with reference to the Mona Lisa a few posts prior.
|
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Aug 15, 2017 12:44:13 GMT
Excellent thread Burly Bear! I remarked on this in Les Mis thread when I saw it again a couple of years ago at the Queens Theatre and the word I used was animatronic! I felt like the show was on autopilot and once the button was pressed it was off - no pause for breath or even applause - the show had to be down by 10.17 or whatever.
I do understand the need for quality control on long running shows - if actors were left to their own devices after a few weeks/months the show would be unrecognisable and the creatives having set the production expect it to be reproduced as they envisioned it. The paying public expect a certain standard. However, this does result in the stultifying of the material after time, I feel. In the case of Les Mis it was clear that the actors had a strict track to follow - not just in the blocking (which is fair enough - they have to hit their marks for lighting and set reasons) but in every gesture. The show is completely annotated and the resident director is paid to ensure this is followed and indeed when it comes to cast change the characterisation and blocking is followed completely.
I recently saw the new cast of Kinky Boots - third cast, and the show and performances are completely the same as the original. The actors may change but the characters do not. So they conform to the template - this may be artistically frustrating but it is work (probably a years contract in a musical) and pays the rent!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 13:23:41 GMT
Excellent thread Burly Bear! I remarked on this in Les Mis thread when I saw it again a couple of years ago at the Queens Theatre and the word I used was animatronic! I felt like the show was on autopilot and once the button was pressed it was off - no pause for breath or even applause - the show had to be down by 10.17 or whatever. I do understand the need for quality control on long running shows - if actors were left to their own devices after a few weeks/months the show would be unrecognisable and the creatives having set the production expect it to be reproduced as they envisioned it. The paying public expect a certain standard. However, this does result in the stultifying of the material after time, I feel. In the case of Les Mis it was clear that the actors had a strict track to follow - not just in the blocking (which is fair enough - they have to hit their marks for lighting and set reasons) but in every gesture. The show is completely annotated and the resident director is paid to ensure this is followed and indeed when it comes to cast change the characterisation and blocking is followed completely. I recently saw the new cast of Kinky Boots - third cast, and the show and performances are completely the same as the original. The actors may change but the characters do not. So they conform to the template - this may be artistically frustrating but it is work (probably a years contract in a musical) and pays the rent! Is that a failing on the part of the actors then? If it's obvious they're just going through the motions, hitting the spots, following cues, then they've failed in making their performance genuine and convincing. |
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Aug 15, 2017 14:38:44 GMT
Is that a failing on the part of the actors then? If it's obvious they're just going through the motions, hitting the spots, following cues, then they've failed in making their performance genuine and convincing. No, I wouldn't have said so. They are very tightly directed and have to follow the template of what has gone before. The original actor "created" the role under the supervision of the original creative team and that becomes the definitive characterisation for that particular production. Inevitably the original cast member give something of themselves into the characterisation which may not sit as comfortably with a new actor. It's just the job they have to do. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 14:42:31 GMT
Further to this point, did shows like Les Mis, Phantom, Wicked, Cats,... become massive global successes because of their sheer entertainment quality or did marketing play a big part in their success?
These shows are more than just very successful theatre shows. They have transcended the regular theatre community and made their way into mainstream pop culture.
|
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Aug 15, 2017 14:49:58 GMT
Further to this point, did shows like Les Mis, Phantom, Wicked, Cats,... become massive global successes because of their sheer entertainment quality or did marketing play a big part in their success? These shows are more than just very successful theatre shows. They have transcended the regular theatre community and made their way into mainstream pop culture. Very good question. I don't know the answer! Cam Mack produced 3 out of the 4 you mentioned so he might be fundamental to the success of 3 of them. I would say, probably, it is a combination of a successful artistic production AND clever marketing - who can forget the eyes of the cat for Cats, the mask for Phantom etc. Iconic images in themselves! |
|
7,183 posts
|
Post by Jon on Aug 15, 2017 15:32:43 GMT
I do think if a show isn't refreshed, it does become a museum piece. Phantom upgraded their sound system a few years back and Les Mis made changes as well and that does make a difference in the long run and I would argue that not letting performers stay on for years and years is good because as much as a performer loves doing a role, it can affect the performance if they're essentially on autopilot after year 3 or 4.
IMO there is nothing worse than going to a show and it looking tired. Blood Brothers was like that towards the end of its run.
|
|
578 posts
|
Post by michalnowicki on Aug 15, 2017 15:48:20 GMT
Which of the current new-ish productions would you say will become a "machine"?
|
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Aug 15, 2017 17:40:35 GMT
I think a lot of musicals almost from the get go becomes machines. Once rehearsals, previews, press nights etc. are out of the way most casts in large musicals find themselves with 10 months to go on their contracts and they pitch up to "work". That work involves replicating the show night after night for 8 shows a week. It is just part of the job. Technically, of course, the show is a machine with all the scenery and lighting controlled by computer with buttons being pressed.
To an audience, probably seeing the show for the first time, it is hugely entertaining - perhaps celebrating a special occasion and are out to enjoy themselves, but the cast and crew it simply is another day at the office!
|
|
258 posts
|
Post by notmymuse on Aug 18, 2017 8:05:17 GMT
I know what Burly means. I saw The Mousetrap shortly after coming back from holiday where I went to a tourist attraction which was about the history of the city I was in. I would not have called the tourist attraction theatre, and I found myself in the Mousetrap thinking that it was as much tourist attraction as theatre now, and that people were going to see it (probably myself included) because of the length of it's fun and fame, not to see the play. The Mousetrap was seriously stale, and I wondered how many of the scripts wanted to be in it because it gave them a year's steady work rather than anything else.
I think the line is passion. I know Wicked, POTO are money making machines, but I think when the people in them and the technical staff stop caring and being passionate about it, then the art leaves. Many of the actors cast in the big shows were likely motivated to go to stage school to be in one of the shows they'd seen and loved, and it's their dream role, so they put their all in, night after night. I've had one technician friend who was thrilled to work on one big show. I think it's that passion that keeps it fresh.
I saw Blood Brothers a year before it shut and it was flat and stale too. I wonder if that's partly why people stopped going and it closed.
So, apart from the Mousetrap which probably gets away with it as it's in such a small theatre, I wonder if the skill is in the resident director or whoever keeping it fresh, and when that fails, the production shows it and shuts. So, to be a money making machine most shows maybe need to keep being theatre?!?
|
|
