The Joy of Musicals and Does Form Dictate Content (maybe a little bit)?

In the world of musical theatre writing, it's something of an unarguable wisdom that content dictates form. Mostly because it was said by Stephen Sondheim. But listening to a recent podcast from Andrew Klavan, I wonder if this is strictly true. Could form actually dictate content? At least, a little bit.

Here's the thing.

Andrew Klavan is a novelist and screenwriter with a podcast about conservative politics in the US. He mostly writes tough-guy thrillers, so it's a bit unusual when he starts talking about musicals. But that he does, around the 51 minute mark of his podcast here.

I suspect his interest in musicals stems from the fact that he grew up in New York in the Golden Age and was close to the entertainment world (his father was a famous radio comedian). So Broadway musicals would have been a big deal.

His remarks were prompted by his review of Schmigadoon, a TV spoof of Rodgers-and-Hammerstein-and-Lerner-and-Lowe type musicals from that period. But his broader point is that musicals, more so than any other art form, can produce joy.

Here's what he says: 

"The musical is very special and specific. The reason it had such a moment at the peak of the American century is because it reflects something unique about America, namely joy. It is one of the only art forms that can record joy...joy is one of the hardest things to produce in a work of art...pure joy, the joy of being alive is something that the musical gives."

Even a dark musical like Sweeney Todd, he says, gives a kind of joy. The joy of beautiful music and words and rhyme. 

It makes sense. Joy lifts you up and makes you want to sing and dance. It shouldn't be a surprise that a performance of singing and dancing should bring joy or that most musicals are uplifting. It does, however, beg a question: does the form of the musical have a bias towards certain kinds of stories, namely joyful ones?

Now I admit, to some extent, this is apples and pears. When Sondheim talks about content dictating form, I think he's talking about forms within musical theatre. So if you're doing a musical farce about the naughty Romans, then you need a lively, sequential plot where the songs help you pause for breath. If you're doing a show about the historical assassination attempts of US Presidents, you need a revue-style concept show. If you're doing a show that goes backwards...well, to be honest, I don't know how that works. 

The point is that these are all forms within musical theatre. What The Klavan is talking about is something broader: the form of musical theatre itself. 

Every art form has its strengths. For example, films tend to be good for exciting action sequences: car chases, police shooting at gangsters, cowboys riding on horses, aliens blowing up large buildings. You can't really do this in theatre or a painting or poem. It's unique to film. That's probably why Vin Diesel has never played King Lear (although there may be other reasons). The form tends towards its strengths and so, on the big screen, we get plenty of action films. 

So, if joy is a strength of musical theatre, perhaps that's why musical theatre tends towards stories of joy. That's why musicals tend to be more comedy than tragedy, more exuberant than downbeat, more cheery than Chekhov. The form itself tends in that direction and, in so doing, dictates the kind of content.

And maybe, just maybe - whisper it - Sondheim needs a caveat.