In an otherwise very interesting Washington Post article on musical theatre writers revisiting their earlier work ("A Brand New Start of It," January 26, 2003), critic Peter Marks, makes the totally unsupported statement:
The dearth of first-rate young writing talent coming into the musical theater has resulted in the directing of ever more energy toward what's come before.
This is not only unsupported (no quotes by producers, writers, critics, or other experts; no statistical data; no "in my vast experience" comments), but unsupportable as we shall see in...
How to Fix the State of the Musical Theatre
The article was an interesting little examination of several writing teams revising works that have seen their days on Broadway (primarily Schmidt and Jones with 110 in the Shade; but also, historically, Kern and Hammerstein with Show Boat, Kander and Ebb with the most recent revival of Cabaret, Stein, Schwartz and Strouse with Rags, and Sondheim with most of his canon). The statement, given as the reason (excuse?) for the current obsession with revivals and "revivicals" is jarring, arrogant, but most of all misleading and incorrect.
The real reason we're being presented almost exclusively with revivals, revisions, and adaptations of material from other forms is abject fear. The cost of mounting a show on Broadway is truly enormous, and a total loss is without doubt something to give the most oblivious accountant a lifetime of nightmares. And since there's no guaranteed success the closest thing to it is a repackaged success in new form. So you take an old show and polish it and put it up. Or hire some name writers to revise it for "modern audiences." Or look to adapting a play or movie with a proven track record. Or, hey!, bring in some big songwriters!
But that's "head-in-the-sand" logic. Yes, on occasion you'll get a modest success, or even less frequently a hit. More often, though, your chances of flopping are equal to those on a new project. For every Chicago revival there are On the Town, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, and One Mo' Time. For every The Producers you have Smile, Carrie, and Breakfast at Tiffany's. And for every Billy Joel (all right, that's forced, how about Roger Miller?) there are Frank Wildhorn, Jim Steinman, and Paul Simon. (This is not meant to disparage any of these gentlemen or the shows mentioned; it is intended merely to point out the fact that any prior success they brought to the table was not enough to guarantee a successful run.)
No, that's not the answer (although I'm not suggesting that any of these are less than worthy, or that the concept beyond them should be entirely abandoned).
| Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: | View all related messages |
For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Steven M. Alper's Theatre topic, please visit the Discussions page.