Getting A Kick Out Of A Review

This is a bit old but what the hey - in response to this piece by the Evening Standard's David Sexton, Lyn Gardner over at the Guardian has been asking if it is too easy to kick musicals.

The immediate answer is no, if the musical deserves a kicking.

But really it's best to ignore this kind of criticism. In truth the Sexton piece is very far from being a kicking; it is a poke at best. It says nothing more than 'I don't like musicals'. Nothing wrong with that. I don't like thought-free opinion pieces by people called David. Each to their own.

However Ms. Gardner goes on to make some interesting points:

"Theatre criticism – largely because most critics come from a literary tradition – has always been short of critics who are really knowledgeable about the form, which may in part explain why musical theatre occupies such a fragile place in theatre culture."

Fragile, perhaps, within the theatre culture. Given that musicals are keeping most of the West End running, I wouldn't call their place within theatre as fragile. I suspect what is meant is that musicals don't receive quite the same cultural kudos as non-musical theatre.

"Popular doesn't always mean pap – and a form which brings such pleasure and joy to so many deserves to be celebrated and treated to the same informed critical scrutiny as the latest play by Tom Stoppard."

I'm all for informed critical scrutiny but it's of a different kind for musicals than it is for a Stoppard play. When it comes to musicals I'm not too interested in high-falutin' stuff like the socio-politico-philosophical context of Oklahoma!.

You can big them up or stick the boot in but, either way, musicals are broadly middlebrow. It's best not to pretend otherwise.

Things Can Only Get Meta

So says Mark Shenton over at The Stage:

"The Book of Mormon and Jeff Bowen and Hunter Bell’s [title of show] couldn’t be further apart in terms of scale or budgets, but they’re both cut from the same ‘meta musical’ cloth."

And he doesn't just mean the good old fashioned boy-met-a-girl kind of musical cloth. Oh no.

"These are musicals partly or entirely about musicals themselves, whether as a hilarious pastiche of the form in the case of The Book of Mormon or a sweet but rather sad paean to the struggle of putting them on in the case of [title of show]."

Now I suspect this is a bit of a non-comparison. The Book of Mormon isn't a musical about musicals. It is, in fact, about Mormons. More broadly it's about the nature of religious belief, the function of storytelling within that belief and the cognitive bias in popular representations of a post-colonial African culture. There's also some rude songs about frogs. From what I can gather, [title of show] is a show about two people writing a show.

The point is that in The Book of Mormon musicals aren't really part of the story. It's only that certain musical forms and traditions are used in order to tell the story. So when Elder Price tries to convince the native Ugandans of the Mormon founder Joseph Smith's story, he pitches it to them in the manner of The Music Man's 'Professor' Harold Hill flogging non-existent band uniforms to gullible townsfolk. It works, not because the audience has to reference The Music Man, but because that style of song (the smooth patter-talk of a slick salesman) fits that dramatic moment.

Back to The Shentonian:

"But I also can’t help wondering if, in the midst of the onslaught of generic and formulaic musicals designed to appeal to a more general demographic, it is any wonder that original musicals have therefore reached a dead end? Just as Sleuth and then Deathtrap finally put paid to the stage thriller as a viable form, since both revealed the workings behind the thrills, so [title of show], by taking the lid off the painful process of writing new musicals, may have killed the thing it loves, too."

Could be wrong but I doubt that [title of show] will prove to be that significant. But there is a good point here. There is a tendency for musicals to be inward-looking. I think you can see it in the exclamation mark musicals (that is, shows with titles like "Unlikely Subject for a Musical! - the Musical"). They are part of a cul-de-sac culture. There may be some exceptions but, on the whole, shows about shows are really only for show people.

And musicals should be for everyone.

Theatre Criticism Going Critical

Emily Hardy is none too optimistic about The Future of Theatre Criticism:

"Opportunistic bloggers, tweeters, and rapid-response reviewers, have filled the information vacuum created by the impartial internet, and whilst these unpaid, unqualified, unknowledgable writers slather the web with their opinions, informative, measured and witty criticism slips into the archives of yet another lost art form."

Here at the Middlebrow Musicals, we aim to please. Personally I would be quite happy to be paid to slather less.

"However, if the horizon continues to darken, traditional theatre critics, artists as they are, may continue to suffer, reminiscent of where it all began – Grub Street and the impoverished, bohemian neighbourhood of hack writers."

Welcome to my world; make yourself at home.

On the other hand if traditional theatre critics truly are suffering "artists", maybe they could apply to the Arts Council.

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.

M is for Michael

And B is for Billington. The Guardian critic purviews the musical scene:

“But there's something unhealthy about a genre that persistently fails to generate exciting new work”

Unhealthy or just darn difficult?

"There seems little room any more for a musical that is not some form of cultural juggernaut or that trades on wit, lightness and charm…. But those happy days when the musical was a source of innocent pleasure seem far off." 

Musicals, even the witty, light and charming ones, are not about creating “innocent pleasure” but creating drama. Pleasure, innocent or otherwise, is a mere byproduct.

“Nowadays musicals have become so industrial in scale and expensive to produce that any form of risk has to be minimised from the start. Like the banks, musicals have become too big to fail."

The fiscal simile is misdeployed. The banks didn’t become too big to fail by minimising risk on their investments. Quite the opposite. Compared to the casino accounting some of the bankers were up to, it would have been far better if they'd sunk all their money into “Going for Gold - the new Tony Hadley musical”.

Their insurance policy turned out to be the increasingly-peeved taxpayer. As fun as it would be I doubt this will be the case if we do see more high-risk musicals. I can't imagine George Osborne announcing a special “Betty Blue Eyes” bailout.

If you’re looking for an expensive, unprofitable, taxpayer-dependent cultural juggernaut to compare to the banks, the Royal Opera House would much more on the money.

Criticising the Critics

It’s tempting to quote Lance-Corporal Jones: "They don’t like it up ‘em".

So Michael Billington writes a riposte to Big Steve’s assessment of professional critics. He does somewhat misinterpret (deliberately? who knows) Sondheim’s main point which is not that critics are unnecessary but that, for an artist, reading your own reviews – good, bad or indifferent – is never helpful.

Nevertheless the Billington defence is worth a gander. It is essentially this:

1. “Art doesn't exist in a social or economic vacuum”. In other words, if you ask people to pay for a public performance you can expect to get some public comment.

2. “What we all crave is a reaction to our work”. In other words, a bad review is better than no review.

3. In New York, at least, “the dearth of newspapers gives critics a disproportionate authority”. In other words, in Britain, nobody cares what critics say. (I may have misinterpreted this last one.)

Well, in order:

1) True. But do we need professional public comment? Perhaps “need” is too strong a word. Better to say that the variety and choice of professional theatre available creates a demand for a critical discernment of that choice, for which an appropriate remuneration and status can be maintained by one thought to hold such qualities of discernment.

2) True again. But giving in to cravings isn’t always a good idea. Just ask my waistline.

3) Don’t know about New York critics. I suspect, however, that for the fortunes of most musicals, word of mouth is the ultimate authority.

My own feeling is that 1) is the only real justification for a professional theatre critic. Critics are essentially Which? reviewers advising us on what washing machine to buy. Nothing wrong with that. It can be done well or done poorly. But its significance is mainly to washing machine buyers (i.e. the audience) rather than manufacturers (i.e. the artists).

Who'd Want To Be A Librettist?

Charles "two minds" Spencer gets confused at Into the Woods:

"With characteristic ingenuity, Sondheim weaves together several fairy stories..."

But (there's always a but):

"But in the second half the musical falls apart. James Lapine’s book becomes an increasingly confused mess of plottage..."

So let me understand this. It's the songwriter, Stephen Sondheim, who weaves all the stories together so ingenuously. But it's the book writer, James Lapine, who messes up the plotting in Act II.

Ah, book writers: none of the praise, all of the blame.

How to Write a Theatre Review

Theatre reviews must be tricky little numbers and I don't envy those who try. But it probably helps if you're not a professional theatre critic, especially when it comes to musicals. One of the most interesting reviews of Love Never Dies comes from Guardian journalist Ian Jack. After ruminating honestly on Snooty-gate and his own attitude to musicals, he gets to the eveing itself:

"I took my 17-year-old daughter. Two tickets for the stalls cost £135; a programme, £3.50; three orange juices and a small white wine, £13.80."

It struck me that the cost of a night at the theatre is hardly ever reported. Why not? Ticket prices are, in part, an indicator of value and spending £10 or £100 to see the same show would most definitely colour your view of the evening's entertainment.

"The house was sold out, but the row immediately in front of us remained strangely empty until, two or three minutes after curtain-up and the action begun, half-a-dozen big people bumped down in their seats.

Why not tell us where you're sitting and who's sitting around you? Sometimes they're more interesting than what's on stage.

"As for the rest of the evening, there was nothing to dislike about it and a lot to be enjoyed..."

In my experience that's about as much as you can say from the first viewing of a new show.

"...some of the stage effects are transfixing; all the way back on the tube we puzzled over the extra who had real legs and the torso and head of a skeleton. Amazing! How had it been done?"

Special effects, spectacle, stage gimmickry - these are often the most memorable parts. They offer an immediate, visceral and determinedly theatrical experience. It's probably more honest to talk about them than to pretend you know what's wrong with the book structure in Act II.

"By the end, quite a few in the audience were in tears, or standing on their feet and cheering, or both."

Again I'd be pretty interested in the general audience reaction, not just the critic's (especially if it conflicts with the critic's). Overall this review struck me as being one of the most interesting I've read. Rather than running through a laudry list of opinions on author, director, performers, designers and so on, this gave me a pretty good account of the evening's experience.

Of course the best review of Love Never Dies came from an audience member, quoted in Metro, who expressed concerned about the number of times the Phantom gets unmasked:

"In this one, he whips it out all the time"

That's the kind of insight that every musical producer needs.

The Snooty Show

Snooty is as snooty sounds and actress and musicals star Sheila Hancock has been sounding off a bit:

"There's an incredibly grand attitude towards musicals. I don't understand why my profession is so snooty about it. It's not just my profession, it's critics too"

And non-snooty critic Michael Billington has leapt to the defence. No, he says, criticisms of musicals are all entirely snooty-free. Let's see, non-snooty criticism number one:

"The first is what I see as the unhealthy dominance of the musical in the West End"

Hmm, perhaps a touch of snootiness here. I wonder if he's ever argued that there aren't enough musicals in the West End? Or asked why the National doesn't do Lloyd Webber shows? I suspect not. Non-snooty criticism number two:

"TV, in particular, treats the musical as the only theatrical form that matters."

Again, would he be complaining if the Beeb did wall-to-wall Pinter? Why the special pleading for non-musical theatre? Besides television's job is to make good television and I'm not convinced that theatre works particularly well on the box. Even popular musicals, it seems, have to be squeezed and sculpted into a reality TV format. Non-snooty criticism number three:

"One of my big beefs about the genre right now is that it lives almost entirely off the past...Where, I've asked a score of times, are the new musicals?"

This is perhaps the least snooty complaint. But it would be more convincing if he had a surer understanding of what counts as "new musicals". He manages to lump together Sister Act, Legally Blonde and Priscilla as being unoriginal due to the fact that they are based on films (by the same token he would have dismissed A Little Night Music) . Now it's true that Priscilla is a compilation of pop songs but the other two have entirely orginal scores. One by an multi-oscar-winning composer, no less. If that doesn't count as an interesting "new musical" you probably shouldn't be doing musical criticism.

I do suspect a lot of theatre critics have to hold their noses when they attend a musical. To be honest, I don't really blame them. I imagine most of them are smart university graduates who didn't spend their formative years reading Chekhov to have to write 2oo words on drag queens singing disco hits. On top of that, when it comes to musicals, I suspect that critics are fairly redundant. Whereas they may be able to help a struggling straight play get noticed I wonder whether they have much influence on musicals.

So, on the whole, I'm with Sheila. Musicals are simply a cut above common snootiness.

On the State of the British Musical (and Other Pressing Issues)

More catching up to do.

So to this Michael Billington review of a musical version of The Lady or the Tiger. Unfortunately he doesn't seem to have much time for the piece and, in the last paragraph, begins ruminating more generally on the "melancholy" state of the British musical:

"Andrew Lloyd Webber effortlessly dominates the scene. But who else is there? Howard Goodall tapped into the British choral tradition in The Hired Man but has never capitalised on that success. Stiles and Drewe wrote popular children's piece Honk!, but have yet to achieve an adult breakthrough. Whether because of economics, lack of encouragement or failure of ambition, the British musical seems a languishing, lacklustre affair."

Now I'm not altogether in disagreement with Mr. Billington. But a few quibbles:

1. Lord Andy may dominate the scene but, in recent years, it's more for his role as Graham Norton's sidekick than for his musicals. I don't know the exact financial figures but I do know that none of his recent shows made it to Broadway. And Sunset Boulevard and Aspects of Love, good works both, were never solid gold smashes in the way that Phantom of the Opera was. But that goes back to 1986.

2. Far from not capitalising on The Hired Man, the splendid Howard Goodall has written plenty more musicals. They just haven't been that successful. Then again he's always seems a wee bit indifferent about the form.

3. I'd say that Stiles and Drewe have indeed had a major breakthrough by writing half the score for Mary Poppins. (And by the way, why does something need to be "adult" to be considered a breakthrough?).

4. He didn't mention Billy Elliot.

5. If I were to take a fairly unsubstantiated guess I'd say there are probably more talented and skilled actors, singers, dancers, choreographers, stage managers and lighting designers working in musical theatre today than ever before. That may be due to all those jukebox musicals and reality TV shows but they hardly make the scene look "languishing" or "lacklustre".

And yet, and yet. There is a sense in which the hit shows, let alone the good ones, are few and far between. I can't really disagree but has it ever been any different? Even in the Mackintosh/Lloyd Webber days the hits were a trickle compared to the stream of flops. Successful musicals are always the exception. I've said it before and I say it again: nobody really, truly knows how musicals work. Not even Mr. Billington.