Your Favorite Broadway Shows/Musicals

Boom_70 · Mar 6, 2008

dreunc1542 said:

This thread inspired me to go rent "1776" since I hadn't seen it in a few years. Still as solid and amusing as I remember it. Now, will somebody please oooopen up a window!
Click to expand...

Good call. I am going to have to do the same.

Ben_Hecht · Mar 6, 2008

Had heard the music, but hadn't seen it until the latest Broadway revival. Liked it more than I thought I would.

finishthehat · Mar 7, 2008

spup1122 said:

Double Down said:

Fenian_Bastard said:

Third-rate operetta, sung by a cast of completely unlikable layabouts, with AIDS tossed in as a disease ex machina and a grab for contemporary headlines.
Talented people, unlistenable dreck.
Click to expand...

We'll break this down point by point.

1. Third-rate operetta: I will, in the interest of a healthy, spirited, respectful debate, give you this point. Larson's goal was to pen a rock opperetta for the MTV crowd (which, let's be fair, is much, much different than the current MTV crowd, both in its attention span and its intelligence) and I suppose you can argue that an entire play with zero dialoge is muddled and confusing as a play, and doesn't quite work as an opera.

2. Sung by a cast of completely unlikable layabouts: I think this is bogus. Roger's character is whiny, and Maureen's character is somewhat obnoxious if you take her for anything other than laughs. But young people are often whiny and obnoxious, and sometimes his behavior resonates with other whiny and obnoxious people. Exibit A would be Holden Caufield. However, the relationship between Tom Collins and Angel is the emotional core of the entire play in my opinion, and up until that point in Broadway theatre, I very much doubt you could say that about a African American philosophy professor and a latina drag queen. I think it's fair to say that Rent is a test of your heart. If you're a cynic, it's easy to snark about it. If you think that Bohemian lifestyle -- as ridiculous as it is on its face -- is somewhat romantic, then you can appreciate it for what it's trying to do.

3. With AIDS tossed in as a disease ex machina and a grab for contemporary headlines: This is completely bogus. Larson started working on the idea for RENT in 1989, when no one was talking about AIDS, and it took him seven freaking years to get it to the stage. If it's a shameless headline grab, it's a pretty poor one, considering how long it took to bring the idea to life and that Angels in America and the movie Philadelphia beat it by several years. Despite the fact that a lot of gay people were working on Broadway, including a lot of them suffering (but living) with AIDS, it wasn't exactly something regularly being discussed on the stage in front of old, white, Republican audiences. Rent may not have changed that on its own, but it certainly helped move the conversation forward. It represents a New York that no longer exists, which is why it probably seems so dated to Lugnuts. Gay kids who were living in poverty, creating new family structures and believing, naively, that art could change things. Larson saw his friends dying of AIDS and took inspiration from that. Sure, the message is simplistic, but it was hardly a marketing tool. It was a means of surviving. If you want to quibble with something, it's the ending. Mimi's recovery is a copout. That I concede. But Angel's fate stings.

4. Talented people, unlistenable dreck. You've got the talented part right. Hard to argue with an original cast that includes Anthony Rapp, Idina Menzel, Jesse Martin and Taye Diggs. As for the unlistenable part, I can't back you there. La Vie Boheme is one of the most lively numbers in music theatre. Seasons of Love is nothing if not catchy. And Martin's rendition of
is sad and sweet and moved this hetero guy to tears.

So boo to you.
Click to expand...

Agreed on all parts. I could listen to Rent all day. We listen to Broadway on weekend overnights trying to get ready for our shows.

Larson has another show we listen to, but for the life of me, I can't think of the title.
Click to expand...

Tick Tick.....Boom, probably.

spup1122 · Mar 7, 2008

finishthehat said:

spup1122 said:

Double Down said:

Fenian_Bastard said:

Third-rate operetta, sung by a cast of completely unlikable layabouts, with AIDS tossed in as a disease ex machina and a grab for contemporary headlines.
Talented people, unlistenable dreck.
Click to expand...

We'll break this down point by point.

1. Third-rate operetta: I will, in the interest of a healthy, spirited, respectful debate, give you this point. Larson's goal was to pen a rock opperetta for the MTV crowd (which, let's be fair, is much, much different than the current MTV crowd, both in its attention span and its intelligence) and I suppose you can argue that an entire play with zero dialoge is muddled and confusing as a play, and doesn't quite work as an opera.

2. Sung by a cast of completely unlikable layabouts: I think this is bogus. Roger's character is whiny, and Maureen's character is somewhat obnoxious if you take her for anything other than laughs. But young people are often whiny and obnoxious, and sometimes his behavior resonates with other whiny and obnoxious people. Exibit A would be Holden Caufield. However, the relationship between Tom Collins and Angel is the emotional core of the entire play in my opinion, and up until that point in Broadway theatre, I very much doubt you could say that about a African American philosophy professor and a latina drag queen. I think it's fair to say that Rent is a test of your heart. If you're a cynic, it's easy to snark about it. If you think that Bohemian lifestyle -- as ridiculous as it is on its face -- is somewhat romantic, then you can appreciate it for what it's trying to do.

3. With AIDS tossed in as a disease ex machina and a grab for contemporary headlines: This is completely bogus. Larson started working on the idea for RENT in 1989, when no one was talking about AIDS, and it took him seven freaking years to get it to the stage. If it's a shameless headline grab, it's a pretty poor one, considering how long it took to bring the idea to life and that Angels in America and the movie Philadelphia beat it by several years. Despite the fact that a lot of gay people were working on Broadway, including a lot of them suffering (but living) with AIDS, it wasn't exactly something regularly being discussed on the stage in front of old, white, Republican audiences. Rent may not have changed that on its own, but it certainly helped move the conversation forward. It represents a New York that no longer exists, which is why it probably seems so dated to Lugnuts. Gay kids who were living in poverty, creating new family structures and believing, naively, that art could change things. Larson saw his friends dying of AIDS and took inspiration from that. Sure, the message is simplistic, but it was hardly a marketing tool. It was a means of surviving. If you want to quibble with something, it's the ending. Mimi's recovery is a copout. That I concede. But Angel's fate stings.

4. Talented people, unlistenable dreck. You've got the talented part right. Hard to argue with an original cast that includes Anthony Rapp, Idina Menzel, Jesse Martin and Taye Diggs. As for the unlistenable part, I can't back you there. La Vie Boheme is one of the most lively numbers in music theatre. Seasons of Love is nothing if not catchy. And Martin's rendition of
is sad and sweet and moved this hetero guy to tears.

So boo to you.
Click to expand...

Agreed on all parts. I could listen to Rent all day. We listen to Broadway on weekend overnights trying to get ready for our shows.

Larson has another show we listen to, but for the life of me, I can't think of the title.
Click to expand...

Tick Tick.....Boom, probably.
Click to expand...

That is correct. I just brain-farted for a moment.

Ben_Hecht · Mar 11, 2008

Terrific obscure material from some of the folks who founded the franchise, in chrono order:

1929: Cole Porter's Fifty Million Frenchmen: Porter was nuts about Paris, and
he wrote most of his spot-on Paris stuff early in his career, including this episodic entertainer. Notable highlights include "You Do Something To Me" and
the hysterical 11 o'clock number "I'm Unlucky At Gambling". Score exists on CD.
Do yourself a favor.

1932: Rodgers & Hart: Love Me Tonight: The highlight of R&H's Hollywood exile.
A Paramount Pictures release, starring Maurice Chevalier and Jeanette McDonald,
along with many of the stock Paramount players, including Charles Butterworth,
C. Aubrey Smith, and Myrna Loy in a riotous man-hungry role. Song highlights
include "Isn't It Romantic" (featured early-on in one of the most remarkable film
sequences, ever) and "Lover". Available on DVD, and we are grateful.

1933: The Gershwins: "Pardon My English": Writing a musical based in Germany for 1933 staging was not a good idea, and given the depths of the Depression, the production broke the producer. Too bad, because while the plot is bizarre, the score is top-rate, with such quality stuff as "The Lorelei" and "My Cousin In Milwaukee" among the highlights. Widely available on CD.

spikechiquet · Jul 8, 2012

Bringing back the thread since I just saw Wicked for the 3rd time tonight.
This last year I have been "dragged" to see more productions and have seen Rock of Ages (loved it!), Million Dollar Quartet (LOVED IT!) and Wicked (liked it the 2nd time the best, but this time was good also since we were in the 5th row).
My wife still wants to see Book of Mormon and after she saw Jersey Boys, I think I want to see it also.

Log in or Sign up

Your Favorite Broadway Shows/Musicals

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Ben_Hecht Active Member

finishthehat Active Member

spup1122 Guest

Ben_Hecht Active Member

spikechiquet Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Your Favorite Broadway Shows/Musicals

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

Ben_Hecht Active Member

finishthehat Active Member

spup1122 Guest

Ben_Hecht Active Member

spikechiquet Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches