What was RAPUNZEL is now TANGLED
Disney’s Rapunzel has been retitled Tangled due to Disney’s belief that the title of The Princess and the Frog deterred young boys from seeing the film preventing that film from performing as well as they hoped it would at the box office. The new trailer for the film has basically sunk all my enthusiasm for the project:
And I was so looking forward to it.
A recent discussion on Musicals.net that debated the terminology that could be used to classify songs from musicals caught my attention. Thinking about it carefully, I realised that I do not feel that “Broadway” or “showtune” function well as an all encompassing moniker for the music that is encountered in this genre. If one looks past the literal implications of the words (i.e. a tune from a Broadway-styled show), a connotation exists within the common discourse that connects these words with a particular kind of theatrical music that is perhaps best exemplified by the three great parade songs in Helly, Dolly!, Anyone Can Whistle and Funny Girl. It does not seem appropriate to call the extended song sequences in Passion or the recitative in Aspects of Love “showtunes” or to refer to these as Broadway-style music, even though both are tunes that appear in shows that have played on Broadway.
The real reason for the connection between the music from musicals and these terms was one that was forged, one assumes, in the early days of musical theatre and cast permanently in whatever metaphorical metal you like during the golden age of musical theatre, which ended in the 1960s: it is a kind of branding and, even though the terrain has changed and musical theatre has become an international endeavour and many great musicals do not originate or even play on Broadway, the association remains.
Every now and then, I’ll get a nasty little message implying that discussions around musical theatre practice, debates around musical theatre terminology and so on are petty and worthless. Let me go on record saying that I do not think such discussions are petty at all. It is obviously of interest to those of use who discuss it and who do so regularly. Sometimes, it astounds me how quickly some people write off topics that deal with abstraction and theory and this is perhaps what is petty, more than the discussions themselves are.
The semantics that surround the field of musical theatre scholarship are important, increasingly so as musical theatre criticism emerges as a reputable field of literary criticism that continues to grow as an area in which research and analysis can be explored in post-graduate studies of the genre. The debate around terminology, for example, is a particularly interesting one because terms have been so loosely applied in the relatively short and constantly evolving history of what we call musical theatre and the process of defining a common lexicon for the field is still very much in motion.
Now, I would never expect that such discussions, on whatever level of discourse they may occur, to interest everyone. If the topic does not interest you, then you really don’t need to post a response on my blog passing judgment on the discussion and by implication upon the people who have participated in it. You don’t even need to read my blog at all. Move on to the things that interest you instead.
BEAUTY AND THE BEAST
How’s this for a bit of fun? What were your first CD’s? Bonus points if they are musical theatre related! My first CD’s were Mango Groove’s self-titled first album and the soundtrack of Beauty and the Beast. I still have both of them.
Is everything really fine, Alice Ripley?
Musical theatre sites are buzzing with conflicting opinions around the “Alice Ripley” controversy. Haven’t heard about it yet? Here’s the 411:
From PopWatch:
(Alice Ripley) came under fire for using a gay slur in her Facebook status, a response to a critic’s review of her Next to Normal performance:“QUOTE FROM A NUMB BUTT ON BROADWAY WORLD: “I’VE SEEN N2N 8 TIMES WITH ALICE RIPLEY, WHICH IS 7 TIMES TOO MANY.” HA HA HA HA!!! THIS FRUSTRATED ACTOR (I WON’T SAY F–) IS MY NEW BEST FRIEND! THANKS FOR LOOKING DOWN ON LOSERS LIKE US THAT WORK FOR A LIVING. YOU ARE THE OPPOSITE OF A WONDERFUL AUDIENCE.”
Ripley has since apologized (via Facebook), calling her actions “careless and thoughtless,” but many fans within the theater community were outraged by the remarks (ideas for a Ripley protest have been circulating).
Alice Ripley’s “fag” comment certainly was a mistake and I’m glad that an apology followed it. However, that doesn’t render it unprejudiced, nor does the apology erase the comment. I can’t suddenly pretend that she didn’t say it or that it doesn’t offend me. Now – I don’t think Ripley is really homophobic, but in some ways that makes it worse, because it means that whatever it is that is inside her that makes her feel it was acceptable to use that word in a context such as this is far more deeply and dangerously rooted. It’s spiteful – and part of me is left to wonder, then, to what extent her apology is a move made out of marketing rather than sincerity: after all, one shouldn’t bite the hand that feeds you.
The other thing that concerns me about this situation is the number of people who just don’t seem to “get” why Ripley’s comment was inappropriate. Straight people who do not understand that its not all right to use words like “fag” in a derogatory manner and imply that reactions like mine are only an offshoot of the living in a PC world really do not know what they’re talking about and clearly have no idea of the personal effect that discrimination against any group of people can have on the individuals in that group. Either that, or they have no empathy for their fellow human beings.
Here is an interesting question that I’d like people to consider: why do we expect musical theatre to make use of pure rhyme or celebrate lyrics that are crafted using pure rhyme more readily than those that employ other kinds of rhyme? It’s a convention that I think many people accept as a standard for musical theatre, but is it only convention that makes it so?
When one takes into consideration that other kinds of rhyme actually are identified in English as different kinds of rhyme, rather than being “wrong”, should this expectation shift at all? In An Introduction to Rhyme, Peter Dale analyses forty different kinds of rhyme, a list of which can be seen here. Do none of these except the certain forms of traditional pure rhyme have a prize place in musical theatre? If so, why?
I’ve also posed this question on Finishing the Chat and I think the responses here and there might lay the foundation for some interesting discussion on musical theatre practice. Feel free to comment in the comment box below if you have anything to contribute to the discussion.
Brecht in Action
I was recently reading a rather mundane series of posts around the issue of adaptation at Musicals.net, which then delved into the realm of Bertolt Brecht and his vision of theatre. Here’s the bit that I found interesting:
Hans wrote:
There are different levels of how much an adapter contributes with in an adaptation. Just to pick relatively neutral examples, I’d say that the movie adaptations of A Clockwork Orange and The Lord of the Rings respectively can be said to represent two extreme positions of a continuum. The adaptations of The Lord of the Rings are very faithful to the books they are based upon, and recreate as closely as possible the images and moods from the source of adaptation. A Clockwork Orange on the other hand, goes as far as possible in reinterpreting the book it is based upon. The frame of the story is by and large kept, but it serves to a great degree as a vehicle for the agenda of the adapter, who uses a lot of the effects that belong exclusively to the movie genre to crate an end product that stands much further from the source than the The Lord of the Rings adaptation does.Should an adapter have an agenda he or she wants to illuminate? Or is it OK to merely “illustrate” a story?
Monsieur D’Arque wrote:
The question you ask is an old one. The Clockwork Orange question is related in a way to Brecht, who would reinterpret other stories as either pro-socialist or anti-fascist allegories, regardless of their original position. He believed that all theater should be didactic theater, and should not simply entertain, but strive to create social change by informing the audience.
Hans wrote:
I really believe one can voice one’s opinion and/or treat issues one finds interesting through art without making the art didactic.
My response to this issue around Brecht’s work: of course one can, but that wasn’t Brecht’s intention. Brecht said that the problem with theatre that expressed an issue dramatically left the audience passive and therefore had no real effect socially, politically or economically. I don’t know that Brecht was as dogmatic about all theatre as Monsieur D’Arque makes him out to be, although he did feel this way about theatre that was trying to instigate social reform by approaching contentious and even taboo socio-political and/or economic topics, hence his creation of Epic Theatre in opposition to Dramatic Theatre. Even though he did this, Epic Theatre remains an ideal model for the kind of theatre that Brecht wished to see created in this regard and contemporary criticism holds the view no play has been created that is completely Epic, but that some plays are more Epic than others. In other words, Epic Theatre and Dramatic Theatre are at the extreme ends of a continuum and even Brecht’s own plays don’t achieve every single ideal of Epic Theatre: as drama, The Caucasian Chalk Circle, for example, may be more Epic than Mother Courage and her Children, while both are more Epic than something like A Doll’s House, which could be made more Epic on a theatrical level.
I went to see the 14:00 show Ben Elton and Andrew Lloyd Webber’s The Boys in the Photograph today. What follows are my thoughts on the show, a revised version of the 2000 musical The Beautiful Game. I shall also spend a little time discussing the production itself.
THE BEAUTIFUL GAME
On the New Title … p.2
On the Book … p.3
On the Score … p.4
On the Production … p.5
RIGHT: As yet, the only English cast recording of material from The Boys in the Photograph is the 2000 recording of The Beautiful Game.
Is SHREK drek because of its source material?
As musicals based on movies become more and more frequently produced, discussions on musical theatre forums around the Internet regarding the lack of “original” Musicals” seem to become more and more prominent. Most people seem to forget, however, that truly “original” musicals are rare and that most are based on plays, novels, poetry or other source material. The trend to adapt musicals from film is simply the current trend in terms of adaptation. The unfortunate reality is that many movie-turned-musicals are chosen because of a kind of “brand awareness” created by the original film: the thinking, one supposes, is that if a film has a huge number of fans, then the musical adaptation might sell some tickets based on the film’s reputation. As such, my opinion on the matter is that it is not the source material itself that is the problem here: if that were so, then there would be no musicals based on films that have any value at all. The success of these adaptations lies where it always has done when adapatations are concerned: on the treatment of the source material and the intent behind the adaptation on the part of the creative team behind the show.
Musical Cyberspace 
Genres of Musical Theatre Redux: the 2010 edition
In a discussion around different kinds of musical theatre, I think the first step is to define the terrain of musical theatre. Musical theatre does not include all theatre that uses music. Musical theatre excludes – for example – opera, ballet, dance shows and plays with music.
The next step is to consider what we could broadly term narrative vs non-narrative musical theatre: this separates shows shows that deal with narrative (but not necessarily plot in the conventional sense) from compilation revues, vaudeville, burlesque and so on.
Once we’re in the terrain of narrative musical theatre, it is incredibly important to discern between categories that relate to form (operetta, musical comedy, musical play, concept musical, rock opera) and categories that relate to style (such as mega-musical, minimalist) or content (like jukebox musical or bio-musical) or narrative style (lyric, dramatic or epic).
The key to telling the difference is that the categories a form can be produced using any of the styles or bodies of content.
For instance, Jesus Christ Superstar – a rock opera – can be produced either as a megamusical or in a minimalist fashion, as could any operetta, musical comedy, musical play or concept musical. Consequently, a category defining the style of a production is secondary to one the defines its form.
In terms of content, a jukebox musical can take any the form of an operetta (look at all those shows that use music by classical composers to tell a story) or musical comedy (Mamma Mia!). The principle applies to musical plays, concept musicals and rock operas too. (To link with the example above, a musical about Jesus could, in theory, also be constructed in a jukebox fashion.) Similarly, a bio-musical might be constructed as a musical comedy (Funny Girl), a musical play (Gypsy) or a rock opera (the above-mentioned Jesus Christ Superstar). As such, categories related to content are also secondary to those related to form.
In terms of narrative style, Jesus Christ Superstar is epic: it is narrated to us by Judas. However, it could also be dramatic (no framework of narration or perspective) or lyrical (a one-person show where Jesus sings about his own life). But these shows could all be told in any of the forms listed above, also making the category of narrative style secondary to the category of form.
Any musical then can be defined by the intersection of these various categories.
I’d say that’s a solid foundation upon which a discussion of genre and form in musical theatre can be built and delivered a seminar to that effect several years ago when I was reading for my Masters degree in Theatre and Performance. The terrain is wide and complicated and fraught with ambivalence and contradictory perspectives, but I think I’ve outlined above quite clearly how I feel it all fits together.