As far as accessibility goes, I think you guys are right in what you're saying. I'm probably always going to be the guy defending the American public simply because I think it's too easy to write them off. Let me just say that as a heads up. :)
I get into the Sondheim/Andrew Lloyd Webber discussion with theater people all the time. (Bear with me here, this is a musicals reference, sorry in advance for that.) Everyone dismisses ALW because he uses repetitious themes in his musicals (musical themes I mean, not like plot themes), they think his music is too simple and too popular. They act like it's too accessible. I call bullshit. He's the most popular (and commercially successful) composer because his stuff is good. That's NOT always true, of course (American Idiot the musical was popular because it had Green Day music in it, but it was a piece of shit) but people are fans of ALW because you can sing along to his music, his productions are creative, his music provides an emotional connection, his stories are beautiful and important, etc. So shoot us, right? I'm equally a fan of Sondheim, and he is certainly challenging. And without Sondheim the door probably wouldn't have been opened for some of my favorite composers, like Jason Robert Brown. Maybe Sondheim is some veggies, and ALW is like a big bowl of pasta. Sondheim is so important to the history of musicals. He's the one who wrote Merrily We Roll Along, the musical I mentioned recently, which is backwards in time. His music is SUPER complicated and not always fun to listen to. (Believe me, I was Cinderella in Into The Woods. Every damn song is a mouthful, and the songs are so fast it's hard to catch what people are saying.) I'm not crazy about all his musicals, and some are way more accessible than others, I will say that. When my sister and I perform (we do cabaret type things where I play piano for her and she sings), we'd perform ALW songs before performing something from Sondheim. Because Sondheim's songs are confusing and kind of boring to be honest and focused on wordplay and all these complicated musical patterns. But sometimes we do throw in a Sondheim, albeit usually a more relatable song. Because Sondheim's stuff is super important, and we do think people can handle challenged by Sondheim, even if they don't want a musical revue full of recitative. And most of them CAN. And our hope is that maybe if they hear her sing "Send In The Clowns," they'll consider going to see A Little Night Music, the musical it's from. We play the ALW music because we want people to like musicals. Once they start appreciating musicals instead of writing them off, we sprinkle in the Sondheim, just in case. But then you have the "sons of Sondheim." Michael John La Chiusa, Ricky Ian Gordon, etc. They are composers who have really really important things to say also. And they also challenge the medium. Like to the extent of almost making the medium unrecognizable. (Modulating into strange keys, letting form and structure fly to the wind, sometimes atonal, no musical line, etc.) I mean, I listen to their music sometimes. (I love the singer they use, she's fantastic.) And it is... complex. But I'm not so sure it's in a good way. It's like they took the awesomeness of Sondheim's complexity and challenging nature and almost went so far with it that because of the way their musicals are, nobody can ever perform them. And even if they did, nobody can even sit through them. Does it mean they shouldn't have made them? NO! But my point with accessibility is that these guys have really important things to say, and I worry that nobody is hearing it because of how far they took what they were doing and how inaccessible they made it.
I mean I think the easy scapegoat is American Idol, right? It's the opposite extreme from TTOL. You're right about what you're saying, Idol junkies aren't going to be driving up to an art house theater in Ithaca to see TTOL. But the "stuff" in that film is so beautiful and powerful that they SHOULD see it. But it's just like one tiny notch past what would have been just accessible enough. Maybe not for someone who's not interested at all, right? But maybe for someone who enjoyed the one Sondheim song we put in our revue and then actually liked A Little Night Music, and wants more, and maybe that someone NEEDS to hear what Michael John LaChiusa has to say because it's so powerful. But it's just one slight click too far and then only theater critics rave about it, but nobody actually listens to it because it's kind of annoying to listen to, and nobody performs it, so more people don't ever get to see it, even though what he has to say is super important. Does that make sense? I know it's a roundabout way to explain my thoughts on it, and it might not make sense if you aren't that familiar with musicals.
People shouldn't dumb down their art to pacify the American Idol viewers, I am not arguing for that. I just wish that it didn't have to go SO far that they couldn't even start to get into it if they wanted to. Because I think more people should hear what these people have to say. Jeff makes a good point that Faulkner was writing what he wanted to write because that's what he wanted to write. Totally dude. I don't think Faulkner or probably Malick are pretentious, it's their art and they're honest. (I do think Michael John LaChiusa is probably pretentious based on what I know of him. Of course, hey, so is my favorite musical composer Jason Robert Brown. He's an asshole.) Anyway I do still say they should be honest with their art, it should not be sacrificed. And so then it's always going to be this situation, right? If this is truly how they express themselves and everything, then it is what it is whether or not people get their message, and that's art, baby. (What I take issue is with SOME artists who I think actually may be so pretentious as to just do it on purpose so that people don't understand it, or just to prove a point, that's annoying, and I think that does happen sometimes.) Anyway I agree it will always be a struggle inside the U.S. soul. And there's no resolution really. I'm just a bit of an idealist, I wish it didn't have to be so polarized. And I always have to ask, did this do what you wanted it to do, if your audience is just theater critics and die-hard theater fans? To Jeff's point, I guess maybe so, and that's ok. But boo, what a shame! You know? I'm not even saying necessarily that TTOL took anything too far, yet again I'm talking more about the issue in general terms, TTOL is just getting in my way at this point. Haha. No but what does it mean if it did, maybe even versus like The New World (which I haven't seen yet). It would be too bad that TTOL has something important to say too but it's just one click far enough that it's not accessible at all and might be in danger of going the way of LaChiusa. What a bummer that more people can't experience it and get something from it. You know? Not that everyone cares about that, but I do!
But hey, I hope I'm wrong. If history serves me correctly, I probably am.
Jeff to your point about blind love of directors, I think you can adhere to a director in the sense of, I'm probably going to like the next movie because I love this guy's style. What's confusing to me is when people (and there are people who do this, definitely not you, but I know people who do) are going to like it no matter what. And can't see an individual film and think about it critically... or logically (or at all?) because it's by a certain director. All directors aren't as consistent as some of your favs probably. I find a lot of my friends who are Tarantino fans to be like this. How can you have the same exact vague opinion on every single Tarantino movie, and already on the next one that's going to come out, even though you haven't seen it yet, just because it's Tarantino? It doesn't make sense to me. Or worse, you know how it is when like you KNOW someone didn't understand something, but they're like, "that was amazing, that was epic, that was genius" because it was a certain director, but they can't tell you what they mean because they don't know, they actually didn't understand it either? They just don't want the other people they're with to think they didn't understand something, because they would die at the stake over this director and it's so cool to like the person. Or whatever. Am I the only one with friends like this? Haha. Now on the other hand, I think you can absolutely love a director without being like this, you're living proof! Am I making sense?
Those are just a few rambling thoughts I'm generally agreeing with you guys, I just think this stuff is interesting to consider.
(Also, don't be fooled by my love of musicals - I hate Glee.)
OK I just read Brandon's post after I wrote all this. I AM going to have you debate for me from now on. Crank and all. So now I'll just say, "what he said."
Anyway I better go guys, I think So You Can Dance starts soon, and I need to go out and get some more Miller Lite first.
No comments:
Post a Comment