To purchase MAINLY ON DIRECTING by Arthur Laurents, click on the image above.
May is a mad month. A month of random musings about various topics related to musical theatre. Feel free to share your thoughts on each topic in the comment box below.
Was Arthur Laurents a Genius?
Since Arthur Laurents died yesterday, the word genius has been thrown around a lot. It made me reflect on the man’s career and, while I know some people aren’t going to like what I have to say, this is what I think.
The career of Arthur Laurents was bookended by the same two great shows, each of which owes least to his particular contributions. His work in between was of varying consistency. As a legitimate and legendary writer, his career was over many years ago, and his choices as a director were sometimes misguided. So his brilliance, his genius, is inconsistent, unlike his ability to hurt people one would assume to be his colleagues and friends, which seems to gave been remarkably consistent over the years. It’s not for nothing that half of New York is singing “Ding dong the witch is dead” even as other proclaim his genius.
In short, yes I am grateful for what he gave to the theatre and I respect his work on the books of West Side Story and Gypsy. Do I think he is worthy of theatrical martyrdom? Do I think his work is unmatched or irreplaceable? Sorry, but no.
Musical Cyberspace 
I respect what he did, but David is largely right — most of his work outside of West Side Story and Gypsy were commercial flops and, even in those two cases, his work is not the best element of either. The shows revolutionized theater, not Arthur Laurents. I’ll give him this: he was a decent director and, on a non-professional note, part of me wishes I had the smug bitchiness to say and do half the stuff he said and did, and pretend I even had a hope of getting away with it.
David,
Laurents was involved with seven shows that I adore and think are wonderful pieces of theatre. I don’t know what else I have to say.
David Fick wrote: Furthermore, if you’re so concerned about my stories being second-hand stories, go do a bit of reading and research and you can get the stories first hand from things that Laurents said and wrote himself, from the other people involved in these situations or from others who present when these things were said. It isn’t so difficult if you track down a couple of books and interviews.
Or I could go on BWW and take it all from there.
I also disagree that Gypsy‘s book isn’t its strongest component. The score is incredible, yes, but the book is flawless.
Agreed! If you actually sit down and read the script without the songs, it could be a wonderful, passionate, powerful play. It’s probably one of the most solid books connected to a score.
Nick,
Perhaps you actually need to examine what constitutes a wonderful piece of theatre. Musicals with enjoyable and even first class scores, but which are deeply flawed in other aspects – including their books – are not works of genius, even if they can be appreciated for whatever virtues they genuinely might possess.
And if you want to go to BWW and take it from there, then go for it. Whether or not you do doesn’t matter; sources for these stories exist beyond the bounds of the BWW boards. It certainly isn’t my problem if you aren’t willing to seek them out for yourself.
As for the book of Gypsy, it is a very solid book, even a brilliant one, but it would not work without the songs and it would not work as written as a play. Laurents knew that – he was quite vocal about it – and it is true.
David Fick wrote: It is a very solid book, even a brilliant one, but it would not work without the songs and it would not work as written as a play. Laurents knew that – he was quite vocal about it – and it is true.
This.
Surely if the book of Gypsy could work as a play, it wouldn’t be a very good musical? One of the strongest reasons that I can think of for why it is a pretty perfect musical is that the book, musical, lyrics and more often than not, performances are equally weighted, none stands out as being considerably better than the others, but yet they’re all marvelous. If the book could be a stand-alone play, then it wouldn’t merit the score, it’d be superfluous. Yet Laurents’ work manages to balance perfectly with that and the other components.
David,
How can you tell someone that a musical they love is not a work of genius? That’s just plain stupid and rude and clearly you have no respect for other people. I’m not saying you can’t tell someone you think a musical is not good, but how dare you tell them their opinion of genius work is wrong? For example, I hate The Phantom of the Opera. If someone tells me they think it’s a brilliant musical and a work of genius on Lloyd Webber’s part, then I will not tell them they are wrong. Genius and brilliance are in the eye of the beholder.
I shall personally have to disagree with you on this point, primarily because I am in the school of thought that argues that what one loves and what one believes to be ‘good’ (or, in this case, ‘a work of genius’) are not necessarily synonymous.
The distinction that I use between the two is that ‘love’ is a straightforward expression of an affectionate attachment one has to something whereas to describe something as ‘good’ or any other adjective relating to quality implies that some form of decision or consideration has been made according to a set of criteria, whatever those factors may be. In other words, to love (or hate) something is purely subjective whereas to assert that something is ‘good’ attempts to apply some objective reasoning to a qualitative assessment. I do, however, stress that this is far from a perfect dichotomy; after all, humans are not purely logical, meaning that judgments as to quality will be determined to some extent by subjective standpoints even when one tries to approach the assessment in as technical/academic a manner as possible.
Where the distinction is clearer to understand in my experience is in regard to works that have a particular personal significance. For example, one could have a pop song that one fondly associates with a memory of childhood or adolescence, causing one to be nostalgically taken back to that moment or period of time by listening to the song later in life. One could, however, not critically have a particularly high opinion of the song (i.e. not think the song in and of itself is particularly exceptional in terms of writing), but that does not prevent one from loving it even if it is not a ‘work of genius’.
I would also point out that if one were to take the rationale that telling somebody that something they love is not a work of genius is essentially ‘plain rude and stupid’, even if the argument is backed up with clear reasoning presented in a civil manner, what would the point of discussion sites like this be? Debate is one of the central points of many artistic fields and is not necessarily rude or confrontational; indeed, discussions of this nature often provide a good means of education by discovering points that one may not have considered before. I myself have learned plenty about this art form by reading or participating in the debates here. Furthermore, from David’s quotation (in regard to this specific notion, anyway) I cannot see anything particularly mean-spirited in the argument that he is presenting. As such, claiming that he ‘clearly has no respect for people’ strikes me as unnecessarily accusative.
Now, I probably will not contribute any further to the matter because I know that the ‘objectivism versus subjectivism’ debate in relation to critical opinion has emerged several times on this site and can easily become heated. I only wished to illustrate that claiming something somebody loves to not be a work of genius is not inherently condescending or confrontational and that David probably meant nothing of the sort with his post.
I specifically made subjective and (potentially) objective comments. There is a difference, and I acknowledged it: I love the shows and also think they are generally well put-together and, warts and all, make good theatre. David seemed to infer that I called the shows in question works of genius – I did not. He also suggested that I don’t know what makes a good piece of theatre – I would hope that I do. The major elements of a musical (book, score, choreography, staging etc.) do not have to be perfect. They have to cohere and work. In the shows to which I was referring, I believe they do and that they come together to produce a very enjoyable theatrical experience. I hope that’s clear and not too lardily written.
Oh, I perfectly understand all that, Nick, and agree with your points. I was coming to David’s defence on that particular point more than anything and have probably made myself look like an academically pretentious douche in the process (which, in fairness, is probably an impression that is not too far from the truth).