How Not To Like Musicals

Cultural guru Bryan Appleyard demonstrates how not to like musicals based on less-than-pleasing experiences of Starlight Express, Phantom of the Opera and a Sondheim show:

As intellectually challenging as a Moonpig card and as aesthetically satisfying as cat litter, these shows left me baffled. Why would anybody want to see such nonsense? In the case of Sondheim – the easily shocked should look away now – I concluded he wasn’t very good.

Can I look now?

In the end, I suppose, musicals are, to some, restful. They provide – sometimes – nice tunes and consoling sentiments as well as lots of expensive stage effects. Fair enough. I suppose.

Phew. He is, of course, wrong. But that's OK as he does tend to be right about everything else in life and he does find one exception in The Book of Mormon.

Although he fails to credit Robert Lopez as co-author along with the South Park fellas, Matt Stone and Trey Parker (by the way, how often is this going to happen in the forthcoming reviews?), his analysis is spot on:

Neither Mormonism nor religion is the prime target, parochialism is the heart of the matter...They [Trey and Parker] do not, however, resort to the helpless, postmodern shrug; rather, they draw consolation from the fact that, adrift we may be, but at least we are all in the same boat. And what do we do to pass the time? We tell stories.

However absurd Mormon parochialism appears to the outsider, it is a story to live by and we all need one of those.

How to Handle a Mormon

A letter to Christianity magazine in reply to this article by culture columnist Martin Saunders:

Martin Saunders asks if we should ignore, embrace or campaign against the new musical The Book of Mormon. Well, if you’re of a sensitive disposition or under the age of 15, I’d say ignore it. For everyone else, embrace it. 

Yes, the songs are potty-mouthed and profane. But they’re also very, very funny. Yes, there are pot shots at religion and the wackier Mormon beliefs. But we still end up rooting for the Mormon characters. 

Christians needn’t judge the musical with a blasphemy-ometer but as a piece of theatre. The Book of Mormon is quite simply a spiritual whoopee cushion of a show.

It'll be interesting to see if The Book of Mormon gets the same treatment as Jerry Springer with fringe Christian groups (well, group) protesting outside of theatres.

I suspect not. For one thing, the show is technically aimed at Mormons rather than Christianity in general. And the type of Christians who protest outside of theatres are unlikely to put any effort into defending Mormonism as a proper form of Christianity.

For another and more important thing, The Book of Mormon has a bucket-load more heart than Jerry Springer. Even though the profanity per minute rate is probably the same in both shows, Jerry Springer was an altogether colder and more cynical affair, whereas the Book of Mormon, despite everything, is oddly warm and sentimental. This will count for something when it comes to religious reaction.

My general prediction for the show is that there may be a few angry letters but no significant campaigns. The critics will love it and it'll find an audience for a decent West End run. But if it does go on tour, it'll die on road. Every show has its limits.

A Professor Professes

Apologies for the hiatus.

Funnily enough the world has continued to spin in my absence and MusicalTalk has continued its fine work with an interview with Professor Robert Gordon. And he has a theory or two.

Musical comedy: we started it

Basically the Americans often claim musical comedy as their own. They invented it, they perfected it. Well, it ain't necessarily so, says the Good Prof. In fact the musical comedy is a British thing, starting with Gilbert and Sullivan and continuing via the Princess theatre musicals of Guy Bolton and PG Wodehouse.

So not only did we give them classical liberalism and the philosophical underpinning of the Founding Fathers, we're also claiming Pal Joey. All of which explains why the Yanks are a bit miffed and why Broadway critics can get a bit snarky when it comes to British musicals.

Well I've looked at the G&S influence before. Now I'm not denying that it's there, only that it's not really what's important. The Good Prof cites the patter songs in the Gershwins' Of Thee I Sing. But the patter songs aren't really what we think of when we think of Gershwin. A Gershwin song is highbrow slang, blue notes and energizing syncopation, all of which are fairly non-Gilbertian and non-Sullivanian.

The Princess musicals may make a better case. I can't say I know much about 'em. But it's odd that, if they are such significant shows, that they are so little-known. Then again, significance is not always the same thing as enduring appeal.

Advancing it Backwards

No, not the plot of Merrily We Roll Along.

Instead the discussion turned to whether the newer Broadway shows - The Producers, Avenue Q, Hairspray, The Book of Mormon - represent a new kind of musical comedy. Not really, says the Good Prof. Critics have over-emphasized their innovations but, in truth, these are old-fashioned shows.

Couldn't agree more. Structurally they follow most of the conventions (two acts, a romantic plot) and musically they tend to hark back to old song styles. Nothing wrong with that.

Where they do innovate is in the choice of subject matter. Part of the joke of these shows is the clash between subject and form: high-kicking Nazis and cheery songs about racism. These shows play on the conventions of musical comedy and, in doing so, need to maintain some of the conventions themselves. You could say that they are advancing the form backwards.

Is Billy Elliot the Greatest British Musical Ever?

Not a bad choice.

But I wouldn't agree with the Good Prof's reasons which are:

(1) that the events of the Miners' Strike still resonate in people's memories
(2) because it's about a boy wanting to dance, this justifies the story being told as a musical

I'd say that (1) won't be true for everyone. It's not the vividness of audience members' memories that makes the show work but the convincing way in which the authors have portrayed the tension and atmosphere of the miners' community. On (2) I'd agree that every musical needs a justification for being a musical. But if musicals can only be justified if they are about dancing (or, presumably, singing) then we're seriously limiting their scope.

So what is the greatest British musical ever? Oliver! is the obvious choice but personally I'd plump for Jesus Christ Superstar. In fact it may well be the greatest musical ever.

Don't tell the Americans.