Misbegotten beauty and general beastliness

[desperance]

mizkit asked me in a comment, whether she'd missed a commentary on 'Beauty and the Beast' because I'd mentioned it sidelong in last night's post but not apparently otherwise.

I guess I didn't talk about it, because I don't think of this as a review blog; I'm at the theatre all the time, and really don't want to start thinking of it as a job ('specially a non-paying job). I don't talk about books much, for the same reason; only when I'm excited, or occasionally enraged.

However, when I'm invited...

'Beauty and the Beast' didn't enrage me; mostly, it bored me. Which is what troubles and depresses me, because this is - predictably - the way that musical theatre is heading. It seems that these days, Disney is to Broadway as Lloyd Webber is to the West End: an arbiter, a standard, the measure of success.

The trouble with this, of course, is that animated feature films - even though, yes, they do have songs - do not transfer readily to the musical stage. The magic of animation does not transfer at all, because it lies in, it inheres to those aspects that cannot be replicated in live action (we wouldn't need animation, let alone marvel at it, if spoons could dance and stars could sing); the charm and wit of animation doesn't transfer well either, because it consists largely in giving character to things that have none of their own.

Which means that if you want to transfer animation to the stage - tho' God alone knows why you would, except in pursuit of money, for precisely those reasons outlined above: it's artistically inappropriate and creatively null - then the sine qua non is to replace those elements that cannot be transferred, to substitute theatre-magic for cartoon-magic. It's not enough to dress people up as spoons and give them dance-steps; this does not replicate the charm or magic of a dancing spoon.

Guess what Disney does?

Yup. We have people in cutlery costumes.

Which I could forgive if they were witty, if they had a lively and interesting script; because that's where theatre-magic lives, in the words, but Disney doesn't know that. Disney is all about look-see. I don't know the movie, so I couldn't say if they've simply transferred the script of that to this, but I wouldn't be surprised. It's dreary: flat, leaden, deathly dull.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the music, and some of the songs have their moments - but moments aren't enough, not when there are hours to sit through. (And there is of course the whole other problem of little girls in princess costumes, who will sit entranced through the DVD time and time again, because they are two feet from the screen and there is magic right in front of their noses; so of course they want to come to the stage show, and of course their parents bring them, and they're a hundred feet from grown-ups in costumes and it's not the same at all, and they're quickly bored and restless and querulous and... but this is not a review of audiences, I'll save that for another day.)

Mostly, it's the whole concept that's corrupt. Transferring animation to the stage is pointless and without merit, but it is financially rewarding, and so they do it more and more. Of course Broadway has always been about making money, but they used to go looking for talent to achieve that. Now they take short-cuts, they settle for substitution, how to turn that dollar into this dollar; what they put on stage as a result is hollow in concept and flawed in realisation, it's just not good at any point. And there will be more and more of it, and it will come to be what musical theatre means, and we will have charted another loss.

(And then I go to see 'The Producers' and feel all optimistic again, because that's an adaptation that has entirely found its own magic, twice, from original film to stage musical and then of course back to film again, and it works in all three incarnations...)

Comments

[mizkit.livejournal.com]

Oh! Thank you! :) And I don't think of this as a review-blog, either, it's just that I grew up in musical theatre and enjoy nothing more than a show you can rip to shreds, and so watching others rip them to shreds is a great joy to me. :)

I agree wholeheartedly with your commentary, too, on pretty much ever level, from the cutlery costumes to the audience of children to the bad script. I went on for rather a while about my opinion back in March. :)

I must suggest to you that if you ever, ever, ever get the chance, go see The Lion King on stage, because it does everything you could possibly hope in turning a wonderful film into a phenomenal stage show. A friend of mine says you have to see BatB to really appreciate Lion King, because BatB makes it so clear what little they can get away with and still make enormous amounts of money, whereas Lion King makes it clear what they can do if they love what they're doing.

[costumeimp.livejournal.com]

I whole heartedly agree with MizKit. If you get the chance, treat yourself to the visual spectacle that is Lion King on stage. Don't expect a great book, but prepare for stunning visual displays... and Remember that Lion King on stage was the brainchild of Ms Julie Taymor. I think Lion King is by far the most successful (financially) of the Disney Live musicals. It's all about presentation and puppets and props. Lion King was the 2nd live on stage musical for Disney.

[durham-rambler.livejournal.com]

I disagree with you about The Producers. I found the original Mel Brooks film funny because it had edge. Springtime for Hitler was outrageous but it kept just the right side of the line. Perhaps this is because it was closer to the Second World War. And because Zero Mostel was a Jew who was blacklisted by McCarthy. And here a diversion:

Zero Mostel (played by Jim Brochu) appears before the House Un-American Activities Committee.

I found the remake too slick and I thought it trivialised fascism in a way that the original didn't. About the stage show I cannot comment as I haven't seen it.

[costumeimp.livejournal.com]

I am in agreement with you Durham. The remake of the film was just flat and basically uninteresting. Even with the Broderick/Lane combination. And please, don't ever make me watch Thurman lipsync again. EVER!! It was more about the slapstick and less about the underlying themes that made the original so thought provoking.

[costumeimp.livejournal.com]

Yes, I have a bit to say, hungover as the imp is, I'll try to make it understandable for the rest of the world.

Disney in General: The live musicals remain very close to true to the movies as far as the book is concerned. They have to, too many children can recite the lines word for word. And yes, Disney sinks millions of dollars into the stage shows. And yes, Disney is taking over Broadway, we currently have: Beauty, Lion King, Mary Poppins, and Tarzan. Little Mermaid is soon to open here are well.

I've been a recipient of Disney money for many years but that doesn't make me loyal. I too have a problem with the Mouse taking over Broadway. A lot of it stems from the fact that there is only One Disney show here in NYC that is actually on the legit contract with my union. All the rest of their shows are on the special Disney contract... I have a problem with that because Disney owns Florida (and 1/3 of NYC but that is neither here nor there). But I don't agree that just because they are a corporate giant that they should have special concessions with my labor union. If you are on Broadway, you should be under the jurisdiction of the Broadway contract, not your own. And taking into account that most of Disney's shows are long running and therefore financially successful, I take even bigger umbrage to labor concessions. In my own personal protest, I refuse to accept work on any Disney musical that isn't on the legit contract. There I go, in my hungover state, I've strayed from the point...

Beauty was the First of the live on Broadway musicals. It has been running in NYC for over 13 years. (It will be closing as the 6th longest running musical on Broadway, July 29th of this year). It's looking old and tired here, but still packing them in. It's one of the musicals that the whole family can go and see. Yes, there is dancing cutlery, and twirling napkin girls, and spinning plates, and corkscrews and... you get the point. 14 or 15 years ago, when they were designing the production it was cutting edge and new... 15 years ago! Audience expectation has changed greatly in the last 15 years. It is no longer fresh and exciting as it used to be. And this is Disney, you have to remember that the target audience for Beauty is age 5-14.

I fully agree with you Chaz. It doesn't transfer well from screen to stage. The attempt to move from 2D to 3D inherently means a loss of Disney magic. You are well aware that it's a chorus boy in a knife costume, no matter how much glitz/sparkle you layer on top of it. But it is what it is, and it SELLS here in nyc, for whatever reason. I'm not saying it's right, but there it is. Many delightful productions have closed due to a lack of audience here in nyc, and part of the reason is that disney is cornering the market. It's been a real concern of mine for years. If I wanted to be Dependant on Disney, I'd move to FL or CA. I don't approve of one single company having such a corner of the market on Broadway. I don't think it prudent for live entertainment in general. Unfortunately, the shows that are wildly successful are those that have huge corporate dollars underwriting the production expenses (like Universal and the initial 14 million dollar investment to get Wicked up and rolling). And we have to remember that this is Show Business... it's not about the art so much as it is the bottom line, it's still Business...

At least Sir Andrew occasionally pens some beautiful (albeit repetitive) music. I think Aspects of Love has some of the best music every written (for a musical), and that was before I heard Michael Ball apply himself to the score. It's just heavenly melodies.

I'm writing in circles... this is why I leave the writing to professionals like you... hehehe I'm too ADD...

Yes, I'm concerned on the current state of the Broadway Musical. The mouse has seemingly purchased the right to do whatever, whenever. Which severely limits the creative power for smaller but infinitely more desirable and enjoyable productions.

It's a sad state of affairs that Beauty has run for years, and yet the brilliant production of Coram Boy slammed shut in less than 45 official performances. Welcome to Broadway...

[martyn44.livejournal.com]

When you have kids of the age mine are, you get to be a connoisseur of Disney - good Disney (Sleeping Beauty, Lion King) and bad Disney (everything between Aristocats and Little Mermaid) When it is good it is very good - ie when they do that animation voodoo with a couple of knock you out of your socks songs without a shred of irony. When it is bad it is as corrosive as mere commerciality can get. Thanks for seeing the stage Beauty and the Beast for me... I'm sure it was perfectly staged and presented, but was there any room for that passionate communication that is the transforming magic of theatre?

I'm inclined to agree with Durham about The Producers - the original is a gem (but then I prefer Cage au Folles to The Birdcage) whereas the newer film feels flabby (from which judgement Captain Jack doing Springtime for Hitler is expempted), and I'm such a fan of Matthew Broderick I can almost watch Cable Guy

I understand the economic necessity of bums on seats, and know that the mouse is risk averse, but wonder whether the next big thrill will come from. Where will we see the 21st Century's equivalent of Joseph when Broadway/Drury Lane is filled with restorations of the Lord's old work?