|
|
|
|
Articles
|
|
|
Articles |
They Killed Theatre!Dateline: 25th April, 1999 In a recent posting in one of the theatre newsgroups - I'm not sure whether it was rec.arts.theatre.misc or rec.arts.theatre.plays - someone put forward the opinion that Andrew Lloyd Webber and Cameron Mackintosh have killed theatre. Now, later in the message the writer sort of qualified it, suggesting that what (s)he was really talking about was Broadway, but the discussion that followed once again opened up that perennial argument that the British musical is a destructive force, being bad theatre, bad music, and a seductive siren which lures the masses away from true theatre and the real musical. All the old arguments were trotted out: Lloyd Webber's music is fit only for elevators and, in any case, is totally derivative; both he and Mackintosh have replaced real content with spectacle; the lyrics are trite; watching these shows stops audiences from enjoying the genius of Sondheim, and so on, and on, and on, and on, and on. Some exponents of the "British is crap" brigade even go so far as to say that the people who have been to see Cats and Phantom (the shows they love to hate) only think they have enjoyed themselves! If they had experienced a real musical (Sondheim or any American show), they would, like Paul on the road to Damascus, experience immediate total conversion. I resisted the temptation to join in. The last time I did, when I asked for an explanation of exactly what is wrong with Cats (having the temerity to indicate that I enjoyed the show), I was subjected to such whithering scorn (that was from the more restrained posters) that, had I not gained some self-confidence in my thirty-odd years or work in and around theatre, I doubt I would ever have set foot in a theatre again. I make no apology for returning to this subject, one which I have discussed on a number of occasions in the last two years, for I feel these comments personally. I will not respond on Usenet because it is my sad experience of newsgroups that reasoned discussion is impossible there, for so many - although not all, not by a long chalk - newsgroup denizens respond emotionally rather than intellectually, and see disagreement with their point of view as a personal attack which must be responded to with as much venom as they can muster. Where I stand Let me set out my position. I love theatre in all its forms: I'm a Shakespeare freak who enjoys pantomime; I am a devotee of politically committed theatre who also likes Noel Coward; I get as much of a buzz out of a experimental piece in the back room of a pub as I do from a classic in the plushest of large houses; I love dance and physical theatre; I enjoy opera, from G&S through to Verdi (I'm not that keen on Wagner, but that's purely personal, and I do recognise his greatness). I dislike bad theatre, whether it's a lousy production of King Lear, a flat and lifeless pantomime, or a piece of political theatre that is more politics than theatre. I hate sloppy direction and bad acting, and I repond with equal dislike to poor writing. Perhaps I should add that I do have some national bias: I am extremely proud of the British tradition of theatre (which I believe to be second to none), but I also admire and enjoy the theatre of other cultures, whether European, American or Asian. The Musical I do not accept that the British musical per se is bad theatre, or that its music is bad. Let's take the criticism, for instance, that Lloyd Webber's music is fit only for background muzak. I have asked just what that means, but have never received a satisfactory reply. I have to assume, therefore, that it means music that does not make demands on the listener. Does this mean music that is melodic? Surely not? If so, it means that most of the great American musicals, from Showboat to West Side Story to a lot of Sondheim, is elevator music. (And Puccini, and Verdi, and Mozart, and Handel, and Beethoven, and Bach, and....) Or does it mean that it is derivative? If so, then we must also reject "Johann Sebastian, mighty Bach" (Quote from Under Milk Wood: a virtual drink for the first person to tell me who said it!), and quite a lot of other rather impressive composers, to say nothing of the Bard of Avon who has quite a reputation for lifting story ideas from others (like King Lear, for instance). Actually, I do have a definition of "elevator music": it's music that you know, so it can be played very quietly and you'll still be aware of it, and it makes you feel good because of its familiarity. So perhaps we ought to take this particular criticism as a compliment! Spectacle I cannot understand why having spectacular effects in a show should be a bad thing. The show most usually on the receiving end of this particular criticism is Miss Saigon and its helicopter, but I have heard it levelled at Les Mis (the barricade) and Starlight Express (more or less everything). Does this mean that we must reject Aida because of the Grand March? Or Henry V because of Agincourt? In any case, spectacle is a production matter, not something that is necessarily inherent in the show itself. I can see how it would be possible to do Miss Saigon without the helicopter: you just have to have sound effects, good lighting, and people rushing off-stage. Certainly the helicopter (and the other spectacular effects) will attract the non-theatre audience, but is that a bad thing? Do we really want to keep theatre to an élite? That's the impression so much of this criticism gives. Theatre for the élite I believe that theatre has so much to offer everyone, not just a bunch of people who have "discovered" it for themselves. But I do get the impression that many of those who voice the kind of opinion we've been talking about want to keep it for themselves. It's the old, old story that lies behind, for instance, the use of technical jargon in so many fields - a way of maintaining exclusivity. Look at me: I know something you don't, so I'm better than you. Nah nah na nah nah! If we believe that theatre is good for you, that it has something to offer everyone, then we have to make it accessible by whatever means we can without destroying its soul. Non-theatre people go to see shows like Miss Saigon, Les Mis, Cats and Phantom for many reasons:
It has been my experience, working with both kids and adults, that the taste for theatre which they gain from seeing one or more of these shows grows and leads them to other kinds. The spectacle draws them in, but it doesn't stop there: they gain a taste for live performance, for the immediacy and excitement of theatre, and that leads them on to appreciate a much wider range of performance styles. We've wandered a bit from the British musicals theme, but just a bit. I have a theory that the reason so many on Usenet are so antipathetic to the British musical is that they feel that the Brits have hijacked an art form which, until the arrival of Lloyd Webber, was almost purely American. What British musicals there were followed slavishly in the American tradition, albeit using British themes (Oliver! for instance). Then along comes ALW and actually moves the form forward (in a direction already foreshadowed, I believe, by West Side Story) and they find this hard to take. However, the first (and last) time I mentioned this on Usenet, it unleashed such a storm of anti-British (and very much anti-me!) feeling, that perhaps I should just shut up! Articles Indices: |
|
|