Open Question about the nature of Westend?

It's strange that you bring up Lion King and Aladdin in that context. At least both are original works and for all of Lion King's flaws, you can't deny the creativity that went into bringing the show on stage in this form. Aladdin may feel less original in the way it's staged, but it's still a fairly enjoyable family evening out.

I don't mind Disney, when Disney sticks to this kind of family entertainment. I dislike Disney when it tries to tackle serious grown-up stories and turns them into twee bland nonsense like "Newsies" with its clean, neat, sweet urchins and lurve story (that has nothing to do with the tough life of the real newspaper boys of the era) or "Hunchback of Notre Dame" where most of the fairly sexual erotically charged content of Hugo's original was blandified with Esmeralda turning into a typical twee Disney princess. But these stories have also been far less successful than the family entertainment Disney does best.

And these definitely have a place in Theatreland - why shouldn't they? Yes, there's a reek of commercialisation when stuff like "Frozen" gets pushed onto the stage so quickly, but I find this less questionable than other production companies sifting through film catalogues to see what could be turned into a money spinner. Which then leads to such "heartless" productions like "Rocky", an iconic film slapped onto the stage with some bland songs stuck into it, which were obviously just written for the paycheck.

I believe the reason that something like "Hamilton" has become such a huge success is that you can sense in every song and lyric how much a "labour of love" this was for Lin-Manuel Miranda and how he spent years on crafting this show. Clearly I would like to see more of these shows and fewer of the lame money spinners. But these things come and go in waves. Broadway had an incredibly creative season last year with half a dozen new original works opening - some became a success like Dear Evan Hansen or Come From Away, while others such as Bandstand, War Paint and (sadly) Comet, did not. This is now followed by an incredibly lame season that brings us SpongeBob the Musical and Margaritaville. Same in London. I wasn't the only one to lament the dearth of new shows and the fact that the few new shows that DID arrive flopped. And now all of a sudden we have an incredibly busy winter full of new shows that are well-received like Jamie, The Grinning Man and Romantics Anonymous.

Would I prefer to see even more of these and fewer things like Thriller Live, Stomp, Dirty Dancing etc. clutter up the West End? Perhaps, yes. But to be honest, I don't think that tourists buying tickets for Thriller or Mamma mia would suddenly turn to buying tickets for Jamie or a straight play if those shows didn't exist. These shows cater to a different market. Just like someone whose annual vacation consists of a trip of a theme park or a cruise wouldn't suddenly book a two-week-holiday to China to dive into the history of the Tang Dynasty.

It shouldn't be "high brow or low brow" - this is exactly the kind of division that has killed theatre here in Germany. There's room for everything. If you want high brow, you're welcome to sit through four hours of Hamlet set in a communal dumpster and performed in Mongolian with subtitles and if you want low brow, you're welcome to spend two hours watching Dirty Dancing with your friends while semi-sloshed, admiring the tight pants of whoever plays the Swayze part that night.

Always considered the traditional West End the Theatre equivalent of Cinema, primarily blockbusters to make money and a good night out. Sometimes ‘independent' productions are scheduled usually dependent on getting a TV / Film actor to star. I’m sure this was always the case but as tastes change so does the definition of a blockbuster.

We are fortunate in London that we have a depth of Theatres that cater for everyone.

True. Like any other commercial enterprise, WE moves in any direction profit points to. It must have always been this way, but this process seems to have significantly sped up in recent years and has thus become even more glaringly obvious. I'm just an occasional tourist and yet, even I can tell how much Covent Garden and Soho have changed since, say, 2013, which was, I believe, when the last remnants of little independent shops/cafes/snack bars (Food for Thought, The Stockpot, Beetroot are the ones I remember) disappeared to be replaced with chain shops/restaurants. My dad used to visit London quite often between the early 70s and early 90s, and when he returned in 2008, he couldn't recognise anything. Earlier this year I saw a notice in Lower Marsh, another relatively centrally located hub of independent shops, calling the residents to protest the closing of shops planned by the multi-national company that's bought the area for re-development. There's also a lovely website on various independent, family-owned cafes in central London, that popped up during the 50s with the tide of Italian immigration, and survived until early 2000s, when they were wiped out by raised rents and replaced by chain outlets. And most of these places actually had their loyal clientele who chose to spend their money there, but it's obviously still far less money than can be made by much bigger number of people who prefer the chains. In the same manner, less commercial (original, risky or dark) shows will still attract a fair deal of theatre-goers, but they'll never be able to compete profit-wise with the safe crowd-pleasers.
Anyway, what I was trying to say before I strayed away from my initial line of thought, is that I do agree that WE is getting more clogged by money-spinners of lower artistic value, but considering the bigger picture, it's par for the course. On one hand, ever growing mass tourism brings London insane revenues, and on the other, it is detrimental to the city's uniqueness and character.
Or maybe I'm wrong? Actual Londoners probably have a clearer picture.

The 'high brow' vs 'low brow' distinction always annoys me a bit...Shakespeare wrote for the masses but is seen as 'high brow' and as noted above musicals can require a bit of brain power, but as seen (outside theatre, sometimes in) as all fluff and nonsense. So it's both arbitrary and incredibly relative.

Having got that rant out of my system, I think there's space for both. I personally can't abide Lion King, but I fully see it's appeal. And if it's a chance for folks to go experience theatrical magic, maybe for the first time, who am I to argue? I would like to see the final demise of 'Thriller' because I think it's just awful 'entertainment' full stop. But I'm happy for Mama Mia to keep plugging on as clearly people love it. There's always been a mix of the 'big and flashy' alongside the more 'indie' hits in the West End. And in tough economic times it's no wonder the latter is currently dominating again. But such things ebb and flow, and for every overblown movie adaptation, there's a 'Jamie' plugging away nearby. Do I hope the balance gets more, well balanced? sure, but if it's keeping theatre's open until that day, carry on Mama-Lion-Aladdin-ing I say.

Also we're incredibly spoiled in London that we have a range of fringe theatres, off-West End and subsidised venues all within a stone's throw that can satisfy what teh WE may never do. Something for everyone even if you have to look for it.

But Thriller can still die a long painful death.

I think there have been some excellent points made here, but I also think it's necessary to understand that this is an industry with multiple layers that have an impact on what is made available to an audience.

I think the demand for variety/high brow/low brow theatre exists - but what lacks in London is the general infrequency of high quality products in West End houses, especially musicals. The basic reality is that the UK does not have the ecosystem or resources that encourage musical theatre writing or development. There aren't sufficient funds, incubation centers, training facilities or even majors as far as I know that make this a viable career for writers. So producers who are willing to take a chance on a full West End musical will either import something from overseas, or work with a writing team to assemble a jukebox musical of some sort. Every now and then a show could be developed in a non-profit, like the National Theatre, Sheffield Crucible, Leicester Curve and the Other Palace, but generally the spaces for musical startups are far and few. In the US, there are funds, scholarships, fellowships, musical theatre writing incubators and workshops that are specifically made for the development of new work. It's interesting that these shows that are causing the Disnification on the West End, are actually not even homegrown.


I'm speaking of personal experience. I'm currently looking into pursuing a masters in theatre production and administration. I'm applying to five amazing programs in the US, but no such thing exists in any university or art school in the UK. The closest thing to this in the UK is stage management, which isn't really the same thing at all aside from a class or two.

I also think there's a general acceptance of shows that are "good enough": the Kenwright productions that have been making recent stops in London, Mama Mia clinging to dear life and Chicago making a comeback, and "Wicked" being still so so relevant (and though still major success in the US, it's really not part of the Broadway zeitgeist any longer). So while there is a mix in what audiences can seek, I think there is a sense of complacency in the London musical theatre scene in the sense that people might not seek excellence. Being neither English or American but spending time in both countries, I see how the "theatregentsia" on Broadway is by far more scrutinizing than their English cousins.