Thursday, October 22, 2009

Back To The Swamp

Yesterday, Shrek confirmed what had been circulating the street all week: the ogre will be leaving Broadway and heading back to the swamp on January 3, 2010.

I know this is probably good news for some who felt Broadway was becoming too "Disney" and "kiddiefied". I'm saddened by the news.

I am so grateful that I was able to see the show back in May. It was a highly entertaining show, and I loved every minute of it. I especially enjoyed looking out at the audience and seeing kids, tweens, teenagers, families experiencing the same thrill. The future of Broadway was all around me.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

"The future of Broadway was all around me."

I understand the point, but I don't buy it.

First of all, it's not like the theater community in general, or Broadway in particular, is starving for young people to become enthused. It's NEVER been starved.

Secondly, "Shrek", like a lot of Disney musicals, probably doesn't contribute much to theater enthusiasm among youth. Sure, they'll enjoy it, but does that translate into a lifelong interest in theater? Probably not. "Shrek" won't convert kids to theater any more than a kid watching the Ice Capades will make him or her persue a career in skating. In fact, that's what "Shrek" IS -- Disney on Ice, but without the ice.

Actually, it might even have a net negative effect. If kids identify theater with Disney, then when they reach that age where they shake off things of their youth -- Barbie dolls, circuses, etc. -- that theater appeal (as well as Disney appeal) goes down.

That said, the problem isn't "Shrek" or "The Lion King" or "Mary Poppins" -- all of which are fine shows in their own right. The problem is that when Disney so DOMINATES the musical theater scene, it squeezes out theatrical innovation. If you are a theatrical investor and producer, are you going to put money behind a Disney-based show, which will probably make money even if it is bad, or a new and original work? The answer is the Disney-based show.

And when that happens en masse, as it does now, the new and original works get squeezed out.

Worse yet is this: the target audience for these shows are tourists -- the family of five from Kansas taking their first (and probably only) trip to New York. And what do they see? Something they have already seen on the big screen. Does it make them fall in love with the theater? No -- it just makes them like the movie more. And when they return to Kansas, do they go into local theater to explore their newfound love for the theatrical arts? No -- they just await the Disney movie sequel.

Forty to fifty years ago, the Broadway scene was full of "Sound of Music", "Pal Joey", "South Pacific", "West Side Story" -- tons of original musicals every season. Now, unless it is a jukebox musical, it's hard for a "Rent" or "Next to Normal" get exposure.

Disney-based shows are fine, but they are to theater what McDonalds is to resturant cuisine. And I don't think too many kids go to McDonalds and come away with an interest in the culinary arts.

Bill said...

I think it is unfortunate that some critics and other Broadway snobs have carped about "Shrek" and other "kiddie" material. If you don't build a live-theater habit somehow, you won't have audiences to support serious theater later on. It may not always be my kind of fare, but I support it anyway. "Wicked" is a great example. And further, it keeps a lot of actors, techs and others in food money, too!

Anonymous said...

It's not the "kiddie" aspect so much as the fact that it wastes the talents of those who could be creating original theater, which is what Broadway used to be. The best Disney shows are ones that depart from the Disney film on which they are based -- "The Lion King", for example, had a look and feel quite distinct from the film (for the most part).

"Shrek", on the other hand, asked the writers, actors, and technicians to simply recreate the movie on stage. And while that took considerable technical skills, nobody can claim that it showed much original creative talent, and one wonders if the show would have acheived any success at all on its own merits, rather than riding the coattails of the movie's popularity.

Granted, most Broadway musicals are based on something that pre-exists; that's always been the case (from "West Side Story" to "Wicked" to "Spring Awakening" to the upcoming "The Addams Family"). But creative adaptations of obscure books are a far cry from outright mimicry of popular movies. The story, sets, costumes are simply live-action versions of the film. Those things, I agree, are nice, and always have been nice.... at Disneyworld.

I don't know why the theatrical arts feels like it has to lure kids by giving them something that they already know and love. It's a tacit admission: "Yeah, kids. We know that theatre sucks, but it's Shrek, so the medicine won't taste that bad". If that's what it takes, then how far along behind can "Guitar Hero: The Musical" be? Don't we (or shouldn't we) trust young or new theatergoers to enjoy original theatre -- on its own merits? Or have we given up the ghost on that? If so, it's a sad commentary.

Disney isn't the only culprit attempting to turn Broadway theater into an extension of its movie franchise (Mel Brooks, I'm looking at you), but it is the most egregious. The good news -- if "The Little Mermaid" is any example -- is that Disney may have gone to that well too many times. Let's hope so.

Anonymous said...

Ms. Roberts, I agree with Bill's statement that shows like Shrek and the like are BUILDING a live theatre AUDIENCE, not trying to turn them into theatre workers. The comments from Mr./Mrs. Nonymous up there about all that culinary arts from McDonalds crap is out of line and certainly not very well thought out. Those comments prove Mr./Mrs. Nonymous up there a) has no kids b) put no thought towards your article in that it was simply stating it was nice to see so many kids and families and when those kids grow up, they'll take their kids and so on for generations (that means audience members, Mr./Mrs. Nonymous, people who go SEE the show, NOT work on it). And yeah, as a producer if I had to choose a show to be done, I want what puts butts in the seats. In this economy? Are you kidding? You'd be a damn fool not to! Audiences and families aren't interested in 'pop-culture' garbage that really isn't much more innovative or creative than watching British television soap operas.
No, audiences want to feel their money was well spent for their families. Make a child sit through an 'innovative' show. Yeah, you'll be leaving before intermission. But show them a 'real' live Shrek instead of just the cartoon? OMG! They don't stop talking about it and how they saw the princess walking around or the gingerbread man! And what a true delight it is to see them way more excited than when they saw the movie, something they will never forget and want to take their children to. Who cares if it was a movie beforehand? Who cares if it's Disney for that matter? I just put a perma smile on my child's face and a memory that child will cherish and have with me forever. Money well spent any day in my book AND money put towards keeping theatre alive.
Besides, it seems any more the term innovative and creative for a show means nudity, foul language, and the persecuted death of someone for their sexual orientation.
What are the audiences and families interested in? Shows they can take their children to, shows that the family can enjoy and have something to actually talk about; an event to remember as a family. That seems to be one of the biggest things in this day an age - a return to emphasis on family. How presumptuous of Mr./Mrs. Nonymous to think Disney musicals only make audiences appreciate just the movie and nothing else and never want to see any other theatre show.
Rent, Evil Dead, hell even The Full Monty, are these truly shows to take a family to? I THINK NOT! My children sure as hell aren't seeing that stuff. What do I trust? Things I have seen in the movies, things I know aren't going to have offensive material that I don't want my kids around. When they get older? An emphatic YES to exploration and seeing shows like that, which they will because why? OH! They remember what fun it was when they were a kid and mommy and daddy took them to see shows like Shrek. Now they get to see the grown up shows like Evil Dead, and RENT, or whatever 'creative an innovative' show is out there in the future. Associated with Disney my left foot! Every child, when they grow up, is always ready and hungry for new ideas and experiences.
And if audiences for now at least are eating up Disney? Let them have it. Let them have whatever it takes for theatre to survive in the economy until times get better and the mood changes again.
So with that in mind? I agree, Ms. Roberts. The families and children you were surrounded by? That will always be the future of theatre and its survival.
Sincerely,
A Fan