|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2017 7:49:56 GMT
I know a lot of people are complaining about the Disneyisation and commercialisation of theatre I am wondering what causes this .
And as a theatre goer do you think its essential to have musicals such as Lion King and Aladdin. Or do you think they mess theatre up.
Also is high brow better than low brow theatre
|
|
2,676 posts
|
Post by viserys on Dec 26, 2017 8:26:20 GMT
It's strange that you bring up Lion King and Aladdin in that context. At least both are original works and for all of Lion King's flaws, you can't deny the creativity that went into bringing the show on stage in this form. Aladdin may feel less original in the way it's staged, but it's still a fairly enjoyable family evening out.
I don't mind Disney, when Disney sticks to this kind of family entertainment. I dislike Disney when it tries to tackle serious grown-up stories and turns them into twee bland nonsense like "Newsies" with its clean, neat, sweet urchins and lurve story (that has nothing to do with the tough life of the real newspaper boys of the era) or "Hunchback of Notre Dame" where most of the fairly sexual erotically charged content of Hugo's original was blandified with Esmeralda turning into a typical twee Disney princess. But these stories have also been far less successful than the family entertainment Disney does best.
And these definitely have a place in Theatreland - why shouldn't they? Yes, there's a reek of commercialisation when stuff like "Frozen" gets pushed onto the stage so quickly, but I find this less questionable than other production companies sifting through film catalogues to see what could be turned into a money spinner. Which then leads to such "heartless" productions like "Rocky", an iconic film slapped onto the stage with some bland songs stuck into it, which were obviously just written for the paycheck.
I believe the reason that something like "Hamilton" has become such a huge success is that you can sense in every song and lyric how much a "labour of love" this was for Lin-Manuel Miranda and how he spent years on crafting this show. Clearly I would like to see more of these shows and fewer of the lame money spinners. But these things come and go in waves. Broadway had an incredibly creative season last year with half a dozen new original works opening - some became a success like Dear Evan Hansen or Come From Away, while others such as Bandstand, War Paint and (sadly) Comet, did not. This is now followed by an incredibly lame season that brings us SpongeBob the Musical and Margaritaville. Same in London. I wasn't the only one to lament the dearth of new shows and the fact that the few new shows that DID arrive flopped. And now all of a sudden we have an incredibly busy winter full of new shows that are well-received like Jamie, The Grinning Man and Romantics Anonymous.
Would I prefer to see even more of these and fewer things like Thriller Live, Stomp, Dirty Dancing etc. clutter up the West End? Perhaps, yes. But to be honest, I don't think that tourists buying tickets for Thriller or Mamma mia would suddenly turn to buying tickets for Jamie or a straight play if those shows didn't exist. These shows cater to a different market. Just like someone whose annual vacation consists of a trip of a theme park or a cruise wouldn't suddenly book a two-week-holiday to China to dive into the history of the Tang Dynasty.
It shouldn't be "high brow or low brow" - this is exactly the kind of division that has killed theatre here in Germany. There's room for everything. If you want high brow, you're welcome to sit through four hours of Hamlet set in a communal dumpster and performed in Mongolian with subtitles and if you want low brow, you're welcome to spend two hours watching Dirty Dancing with your friends while semi-sloshed, admiring the tight pants of whoever plays the Swayze part that night.
|
|
4,778 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Mark on Dec 26, 2017 8:35:54 GMT
The bottom line is, theatre needs to make money, and with it being so expensive to produce it is a lot safer to go with adaptations of popular movies than to try so,etching completely new. Also thinking of the market, families form a big part of this and so shows such as Lion King, Aladdin etc are essential to get youngsters into the theatre,
One of the best theatrical experiences of my year was Hello Dolly. Just plain fun and uplifting. Equally, Hamilton required a little bit of extra brainpower to process everything, and a lot more concentration. We need a variety because whilst hardcore theatre fans will for the most part see everything, the majority of people may go once a year, if that, and so a vast array of shows is needed to cater to individual tastes.
A family of four on their one theatrical night out a year are probably not going to choose The Grinning Man or Woman in White. However, Lion King, Aladdin, maybe something like Kinky Boots or Dreamgirls if the kids are older are going to appeal. Would they bother if their only choice was high brow stuff like Woman in White or Grinning Man? Probably not.
|
|
1,861 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Dec 26, 2017 9:01:23 GMT
Always considered the traditional West End the Theatre equivalent of Cinema, primarily blockbusters to make money and a good night out. Sometimes ‘independent' productions are scheduled usually dependent on getting a TV / Film actor to star. I’m sure this was always the case but as tastes change so does the definition of a blockbuster.
We are fortunate in London that we have a depth of Theatres that cater for everyone.
|
|
617 posts
|
Post by loureviews on Dec 26, 2017 10:23:45 GMT
It isn't really that long since we had a huge choice of excellent plays and quality musicals which were 'events' in themselves because they had relatively short runs. The problem now is just how many WE theatres are effectively lost to the likes of Phantom, Lion King, Les Mis, Wicked, Thriller, etc. It has become a different landscape than it was 25 years ago and both Disney and the jukebox musical are largely to blame for that. Less risks are taken (which makes it great when The Goat, The Mentor and the like are staged), and as prices rise, the WE moves more towards tourist audiences.
|
|
111 posts
|
Post by andromedadench on Dec 26, 2017 12:35:49 GMT
It isn't really that long since we had a huge choice of excellent plays and quality musicals which were 'events' in themselves because they had relatively short runs. The problem now is just how many WE theatres are effectively lost to the likes of Phantom, Lion King, Les Mis, Wicked, Thriller, etc. It has become a different landscape than it was 25 years ago and both Disney and the jukebox musical are largely to blame for that. Less risks are taken (which makes it great when The Goat, The Mentor and the like are staged), and as prices rise, the WE moves more towards tourist audiences. True. Like any other commercial enterprise, WE moves in any direction profit points to. It must have always been this way, but this process seems to have significantly sped up in recent years and has thus become even more glaringly obvious. I'm just an occasional tourist and yet, even I can tell how much Covent Garden and Soho have changed since, say, 2013, which was, I believe, when the last remnants of little independent shops/cafes/snack bars (Food for Thought, The Stockpot, Beetroot are the ones I remember) disappeared to be replaced with chain shops/restaurants. My dad used to visit London quite often between the early 70s and early 90s, and when he returned in 2008, he couldn't recognise anything. Earlier this year I saw a notice in Lower Marsh, another relatively centrally located hub of independent shops, calling the residents to protest the closing of shops planned by the multi-national company that's bought the area for re-development. There's also a lovely website on various independent, family-owned cafes in central London, that popped up during the 50s with the tide of Italian immigration, and survived until early 2000s, when they were wiped out by raised rents and replaced by chain outlets. And most of these places actually had their loyal clientele who chose to spend their money there, but it's obviously still far less money than can be made by much bigger number of people who prefer the chains. In the same manner, less commercial (original, risky or dark) shows will still attract a fair deal of theatre-goers, but they'll never be able to compete profit-wise with the safe crowd-pleasers. Anyway, what I was trying to say before I strayed away from my initial line of thought, is that I do agree that WE is getting more clogged by money-spinners of lower artistic value, but considering the bigger picture, it's par for the course. On one hand, ever growing mass tourism brings London insane revenues, and on the other, it is detrimental to the city's uniqueness and character. Or maybe I'm wrong? Actual Londoners probably have a clearer picture.
|
|
7,050 posts
|
Post by Jon on Dec 26, 2017 13:47:09 GMT
It’s very easy to blame tourists for just seeing the long runners, safe musicals and not plays and newer musicals but there are people who go to the theatre regularly who’d rather see Wicked or 42nd Street for the nth time rather than see a play.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2017 15:02:58 GMT
The 'high brow' vs 'low brow' distinction always annoys me a bit...Shakespeare wrote for the masses but is seen as 'high brow' and as noted above musicals can require a bit of brain power, but as seen (outside theatre, sometimes in) as all fluff and nonsense. So it's both arbitrary and incredibly relative.
Having got that rant out of my system, I think there's space for both. I personally can't abide Lion King, but I fully see it's appeal. And if it's a chance for folks to go experience theatrical magic, maybe for the first time, who am I to argue? I would like to see the final demise of 'Thriller' because I think it's just awful 'entertainment' full stop. But I'm happy for Mama Mia to keep plugging on as clearly people love it. There's always been a mix of the 'big and flashy' alongside the more 'indie' hits in the West End. And in tough economic times it's no wonder the latter is currently dominating again. But such things ebb and flow, and for every overblown movie adaptation, there's a 'Jamie' plugging away nearby. Do I hope the balance gets more, well balanced? sure, but if it's keeping theatre's open until that day, carry on Mama-Lion-Aladdin-ing I say.
Also we're incredibly spoiled in London that we have a range of fringe theatres, off-West End and subsidised venues all within a stone's throw that can satisfy what teh WE may never do. Something for everyone even if you have to look for it.
But Thriller can still die a long painful death.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Dec 26, 2017 16:30:37 GMT
The problem now is just how many WE theatres are effectively lost I don't think it's a great loss in a city as full of great theatre spaces as London. Most West End 19thc-built theatres are horrible places to watch plays but lend themselves well to cartoonish spectacle.
|
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Dec 26, 2017 19:07:53 GMT
I think there have been some excellent points made here, but I also think it's necessary to understand that this is an industry with multiple layers that have an impact on what is made available to an audience.
I think the demand for variety/high brow/low brow theatre exists - but what lacks in London is the general infrequency of high quality products in West End houses, especially musicals. The basic reality is that the UK does not have the ecosystem or resources that encourage musical theatre writing or development. There aren't sufficient funds, incubation centers, training facilities or even majors as far as I know that make this a viable career for writers. So producers who are willing to take a chance on a full West End musical will either import something from overseas, or work with a writing team to assemble a jukebox musical of some sort. Every now and then a show could be developed in a non-profit, like the National Theatre, Sheffield Crucible, Leicester Curve and the Other Palace, but generally the spaces for musical startups are far and few. In the US, there are funds, scholarships, fellowships, musical theatre writing incubators and workshops that are specifically made for the development of new work. It's interesting that these shows that are causing the Disnification on the West End, are actually not even homegrown.
I'm speaking of personal experience. I'm currently looking into pursuing a masters in theatre production and administration. I'm applying to five amazing programs in the US, but no such thing exists in any university or art school in the UK. The closest thing to this in the UK is stage management, which isn't really the same thing at all aside from a class or two.
I also think there's a general acceptance of shows that are "good enough": the Kenwright productions that have been making recent stops in London, Mama Mia clinging to dear life and Chicago making a comeback, and "Wicked" being still so so relevant (and though still major success in the US, it's really not part of the Broadway zeitgeist any longer). So while there is a mix in what audiences can seek, I think there is a sense of complacency in the London musical theatre scene in the sense that people might not seek excellence. Being neither English or American but spending time in both countries, I see how the "theatregentsia" on Broadway is by far more scrutinizing than their English cousins.
|
|
1,245 posts
|
Post by joem on Dec 26, 2017 23:27:55 GMT
I think theatre in UK is in quite a healthy state and it is the best in the world, certainly in terms of volume and choice,and London - for obvious reasons - has the best theatre in UK.
Tourists leave a lot of money in London and should be (largely) welcomed. They go to Disney musicals but some also go to serious plays and musicals which helps to maintain the huge choice Londoners can enjoy.
|
|