"I was asked to give a talk to disadvantaged young people just before a performance of Loserville. Really excluded, hard-core, never been in a theatre and they were coming to see Loserville in Leeds and I thought this is going to be a disaster. What was amazing to me – I think what’s cool is knowing what you are and not pretending to be something that you’re not. So if you’re trying to be cool, that feels very uncool to me. And for those kids sitting in front of me, I was absolutely touched; they thought it was a rock concert and then when it was quiet and when it was dramatic they shut up, they listened to the play. And to me, that was cool. They had a great time and the feedback afterwards was that they genuinely had a great time. They’d never been in a theatre before, they’d never seen a musical before and it didn’t matter, they had a good time. And so I think it’s not about rap or hip hop or any genre, it’s about presenting your art in the truest possible sense and not talking down to your audience. That seems to be cool."
Well said.
It's an elusive quality but musicals are, on the whole, not cool. If musicals appeared on Top Gear's Cool Wall most would be positioned somewhere near the Fiat Panda.
So what is cool? Well, it isn’t respectability (Sondheim isn’t cool) and it isn’t popularity (Lord Andy is far from cool). On the other hand, I'd say that George Gershwin and Cole Porter are pretty cool; less so Irving Berlin and Jerome Kern. Richard Rodgers was cool with Lorenz Hart but not with Oscar Hammerstein II. Urbane wit is cooler than popular sentimentalism.
And what of the shows? Some recent attempts have been made to invert the principle of cool by ironically revelling in geek chic (Glee), soap opera pop (Mamma Mia) or liberal sixties nostalgia (Hairspray). But these examples are merely the defiance of cool, not its attainment.
By my count there is only one genuinely cool musical and that is Chicago. What makes it cool? For one thing, it’s sexy and involves a lot of people dancing around in their underwear. For another, it’s funny and not in a Michael McIntyre way but in a more cynical kind of a way (McIntyre is funny but definitely not cool). The only other partially cool musical is Cabaret in its film version. The coolness of the stage show is seriously compromised by the fact that it contains a song about a pineapple.
So the initial conclusion from this staggeringly comprehensive and scientific survey is that, in order for a musical to be cool, it has to have cynicism, jokes, underwear and Kander and Ebb songs. That sounds like a pretty cool way to spend an evening.
The real conclusion, however, is Mr. Davis'. No amount of rap or hippity hop will make musicals cool. New musical writers shouldn't worry about being cool and should instead seek to be authentic. Authenticity is where it's at.
Another lovely post but may I add one more example of a musical that has "...cynicism, jokes, underwear and Kander and Ebb songs", and that is the dreadfully under-rated Curtains (the actors sleeping in the theatre overnight are in their underwear, since you ask). Certainly not cool though, merely fun - and all the better for it. Chicago though isn't my idea of cool - it's all format and no trousers, if you'll pardon the apposite phrase.
ReplyDeleteBut my real observation is this: Is coolness in a musical (or anything else for that matter) intrinsic to the work itself or merely attributed to it by context? To wit, High School Musical was considered cool by some when it came out, but only those under 16. Would it be seen as cool now by the current crop of under sixteen year olds? I doubt it - it's yesterday's film musical. If it can be cool and then not cool, the attribute seems to have nothing to do with the film itself, but external factors. And taking it back several generations, Fred Astaire was the last word in cool in the 1920s and 1930s but wouldn't be recognised as such now - in fact, he'd probably be perceived as fuddy-duddy. Once again, it's context rather than any value stemming from the object itself. And if that is the case, then we can categorically say that nothing is genuinely cool but some things may have the passing semblance of it as a Platonic ideal but not for long.
I take a great deal of solace from that, as I'm of the old breed that considers coolness to be entirely related to the climate, so I couldn't spot what was temporary fashionable acceptance (aka cool) if was tattooed and was selling its own designer fragrance.
By the way, fan though I am of the Savoy Operas, and also unable to spot or appreciate coolness in any form, I can spot its utter absence: The Cool Mikado (the late Michael Winner's notorious film musical) was not cool in any way. And we can all agree on that!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Thos. On Curtains, I've only listened to the album so haven't had a chance to appreciate the underwear. And lack of trousers aside, I'd still say that Chicago is probably the coolest musical going (although there isn't a lot of competition). The fact that the revival's been running for 15 years suggests that it's more than a passing fancy. Perhaps we should distinguish between cool and fashionable. Astaire may have gone in and out of fashion but I think there is something intrinsically cool about his style. It's something to do with making the impossible look easy and then some, as if dancing on a ceiling is the most natural thing in the world. In general musicals often give the impression of trying too hard - to entertain, to move - and that's not particularly conducive to cool. But like you, I'm no arbiter. What we really need is some objective and internationally-recognized test. Maybe ask the question, would Frank Sinatra appear in this musical? Of course, Platonic idealism is way cool.
ReplyDelete