Belonging to the Stars?

It's been a busy period for Lord Grade of Yarmouth of Her Majesty's Upper House. Taking time our from Lordly duties and following in the family tradition, he's taken to promoting popular theatre. In Michael Grade's Stars of the Musical Theatre he asks the eternal question: is it the musical that makes the star or the stars that makes the musical?

This is, of course, the wrong question. Star-wise the proper question, as previously discussed, is: how to distinguish stars who do musicals from musical stars?

Nevertheless it does give him the opportunity to shoot the breeze with Dominic West. And why not. He's a brilliant TV star who went on to play Henry Higgins in Sheffield. Now, for all I know, he may sing like Domingo. He may dance like Nureyev. He may break a hundred hearts with the rakish tussle of his wavy brown hair. Not a clue have I. But this I know: he is not a musical star; he's a star who's doing a musical.

This is nothing to do with talent, only stardom. To be a musical star requires two things: one, to be in an original musical and two, to have a hit song from a show. That's why we don't have many musical stars these days (and I mean "household name" musical stars). The simple fact is that we don't have many successful new musicals and the ones we do have (Billy Elliot, Matilda) don't really have hit songs. Hence, no stars.

So, until they produce a musical stage version of The Wire which includes Detective Jimmy McNulty's showtopping chart-topper "Tap Your Troubles Away Like Real POH-lice", then Mr. West will not, strictly speaking, be a musical star. On the other hand, if this does happen, I will be first in line for a ticket.

Back to the good Lord's question: is it the musical that makes the star or the stars that makes the musical?

It's tempting to say that it's a symbiotic relationship, like those colourful little birds that sit on top of African rhinos and clean their skin by eating the ticks off their back. I suppose the stars would be the birds, the musical would be the rhino, the ticks would be the lack of narrative drive in the middle of Act II. Or something.

Perhaps a clearer way of putting the questions is: who needs whom? And putting it this way, I'd say the balance is in favour of the musical. After all, there have been many successful star-less musicals (Billy Elliot, Matilda - gosh, they're hit-less and star-less); but there have never been any musical-less musical stars.

In the end, the show is always the star.

Accounting For Stars

In the Stage, the original (and best?) Jean Valjean, Colm Wilkinson, is sounding a bit miserable about musical stars:

"A lot of shows are star-driven. It’s because of the precarious nature of musicals now – it’s always down to the bottom line. They [producers] want insurance all the time. They want a big name to ensure a show will happen"

I'm sure he's right. Stars are, almost by definition, those who get top billing for protecting the bottom line.

"And there is so much money involved and invested that they don’t want to take chances anymore. In those days [the time of Les Miserables opening] there was more of a creative force behind a show, rather than guys in suits crunching numbers."

Quite. I've heard Russell Crowe sing and, man, can he crunch some numbers.

"Unfortunately, it dumbs down everybody. And it doesn’t do any favours to musicals or plays or creativity involved in the arts.”

The artistic complaint about the vulgarity of money is a common one. The complaint about using stars is more interesting.

Stars are a natural and necessary fact of commercial theatre. In fact, there are precious few genuine musical theatre stars here in the UK. As I've mentioned before, in order to become a bona fide musical star (as opposed to a star who does musicals) you need two things: (1) to be the original lead in an original musical and (2) to have a hit song from the show. Really, only Elaine Page, Sarah Brightman and the two Michaels (Ball and Crawford) fit the bill.

That is why we've had all those reality TV search-for-star Maria/Joseph/Jesus formats; there were no ready-made, off-the-shelf musical stars from which the producers could choose. So they had to create one. That's fine for one show but then there is the question of what happens next. After the initial production and the national tour and the limited-release album, what do these newly-crowned stars do with their stardom? I'm sure they could continue in revivals or do the rounds in the long-runners. But if they want to be bona fide musical stars, what they really, really need is an original hit show and an original hit song.

What they need are writers.

Whilst opportunity was knocking for those Marias/Josephs/Jesses, some wondered why Lord Andy couldn't knock up some similar opportunities for writers. Well, there's no shame in writing for a star. Indeed there are plenty of precedents: Gypsy, Funny Girl, Phantom, to name but a few. I'd have thought that writers would be lining up to provide material for these freshly-minted stars.

Maybe this is being done, maybe not. My point is that there's no intrinsic reason why a star-driven musical theatre should be an uncreative one. Stars need writers to help increase their stardom; writers need stars to get their work put on. It's a deal to be fostered, rather than Faust-ed.

A Little Theory on Musical Stars and Their Making

Interesting post from Mark Shenton at the Stage.

He discusses two recent musical stars: Elena Rogers who took the lead in Evita a few years back and Tracie Bennett who is curently playing Judy Garland in End of the Rainbow. Mark Shenton points out that neither were the overnight sensations that is sometimes claimed. Both paid their dues before their big breaks.

This is often the case and I don't doubt their talent or that they've earned their stripes. But are they stars? Certainly they are in the theatreland but what about the country at large? Neither is really a household name and I doubt they will be any time soon. In fact very few musical stars are household names. Here's my little theory as to why.

First I have to make a distinction between Musical Stars, that is stars who earned their stardom doing musicals, and Stars Who Do Musicals, that is someone from TV (Denise van Outen) or pop (Mel C) or non-musical theatre (Dame Judi Dench) or Bolton (Peter Kay) successfully making it in a musical. This is, by the way, not a judgement on the abilities of Stars Who Do Musicals, only a remark on their route to stardom.

I can only think of two current Musical Stars who became household names by starring in musicals: Elaine Page and Michael Ball. Elaine Page became with Evita and later by singing "Memory" from Cats and Michael Ball with "Love Changes Everything" from Aspects of Love. It probably helped that they both had chart hits and subsequently have appeared on TV and radio but, essentially, it was the musicals what made 'em.

You could add Michael Crawford to the list. Although he had previously made his name in a TV sitcom, he became even more famous for doing Phantom of the Opera. Sheridan Smith may be following a similar sort of path with Legally Blonde.

From this I surmise that to become a Musical Star you need to do two things:

1. Star in an original role in an original musical.

And

2. Be associated with a big song from an original musical. (This could be the fatal flaw for Sheridan Smith - Legally Blonde is lacking a hit song)

To prove this little theory with a negative, let's take two top-drawer musical performers who, if it were based on talent alone, probably would be household names but aren't: Ruthie Henshall and Colm Wilkinson. Ruthie Henshall has oodles of talent, has won awards and even made it big on Broadway. But her best-known shows have been revivals (She Loves Me, Crazy for You, Chicago) not originals. Colm Wilkinson did star in a big original (Les Miz) but didn't have a big song to go with it. It took the Mighty SuBo dreaming her dream to give Les Miz its take-home tune.

So that's why Elena Rogers and Tracie Bennett aren't household names. Starring in revivals and doing old Judy Garland songs, however brilliantly, just isn't enough to scale the heights of popular culture. What they need is original shows and original songs. Until we get some more of those, no matter how good the performers, we won't get any more Musical Stars.

Just a little theory.