|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 11:52:58 GMT
The title says it all. After the 80's, the West End hasn't been doing a very good job at creating hit musicals. Apart from reasonably modest successes like Billy Elliot and Matilda, the West End hasn't really created a new hit show since Miss Saigon.
What's the West End's problem? Broadway creates one hit show after the other. Other than the fact that America is much bigger than the UK, what could be the reason why the West End hit factory has stalled after the 80's? Are we still waiting for the next Andrew Lloyd Webber?
Personally I think it might have something to do with the limited support writers are getting. I've been working on a show and it's incredibly hard to get it produced. I'm not claiming to be the next Andrew Lloyd Webber, but so far I can't even get producers to just take a look at my synopsis. I also feel like many writers feel almost obligated to "think small". It seems almost impossible to put on a show that requires a cast of more than 5. I think this also limits your creative options.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 12:12:00 GMT
Unwilling to take risks. The hit musicals of the 80s all came from unlikely source materials (huge French novels, T.S. Eliot poetry, opera adaptations etc.) Now every single new musical that starts in the West End is an adaptation of a famous movie, a family-friendly story, a jukebox musical or a combination of any of the aforementioned. Whilst some of them manage decent runs, they're rarely truly huge, out of this world hits, because they're so predictable.
If we look at some of the musicals that have made it big on Broadway in the last decade or so:
In the Heights: Completely original story, ran for 3 years, recouped. Next to Normal: Completely original story, ran for 2 years, recouped. The Book of Mormon: Completely original story, has been running for 6 years, recouped. Once: Based on relatively unknown indie movie, ran for 3 years, recouped. Newsies: Based on cult hit movie, ran for 2 years, recouped. Fun Home: Based on graphic novel, ran for 18 months, recouped. Hamilton: On paper the most bizarre Broadway show possible, has been running for 2 years, one of the biggest musicals of all time, recouped. Come From Away: Quirky retelling of a tragic event, currently making over $1 million each week. Dear Evan Hansen: Completely original story, currently making over $1 million each week. Natasha, Pierre & The Great Comet of 1812: Electropop adaptation of War & Peace, currently making over $1 million each week.
In NYC, the less commercial the show is on paper, the more they seem to succeed these days, although there are exceptions such as Aladdin and Kinky Boots.
Whilst I'm sure that the UK must have writers that are capable of producing work that is both unique and of a high standard, for some reason they're not being allowed to take space in West End theatres. Whilst I can understand why producers may be wary, at this point surely they can see that all of these movie adaptations such as Bend It Like Beckham, Made in Dagenham and Mrs Henderson Presents are resulting in very limited runs too.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 12:42:34 GMT
Very good point, snutte. I personally don't feel the desire to see shows based on stories that I already know well. What's the point in going to the theatre if all you're going to see is just a story you already knew, often accompanied by mediocre music. To be honest, I'd rather see a completely new story with mediocre music. At least then there will be something new to discover.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Apr 30, 2017 12:45:54 GMT
Yes, unwilling to take risks - both creators and producers. Lack of ambition or, perhaps, fear of ambition. It extends right down to the fringe which should be all about risk-taking and experimentation and new thinking. And yet the material we're seeing - like, most recently, Miss Atomic Bomb and 27 - is stale and hackneyed and dead on arrival.
Could it be as simple as musical theatre being more deeply imbedded in the creative culture of America than it is here? The best of America's composers and writers are working on musicals - doesn't seem to be the case here. Here competent but deeply uninspired people like Stiles and Drew or Gary Barlow are top of the heap despite (because of?) their lack of originality. These are the creatives who are supported by the theatre establishment because, I suppose, they seem safe. The results speak for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 12:55:44 GMT
Very good point, snutte. I personally don't feel the desire to see shows based on stories that I already know well. What's the point in going to the theatre if all you're going to see is just a story you already knew, often accompanied by mediocre music. To be honest, I'd rather see a completely new story with mediocre music. At least then there will be something new to discover. Yep, and whilst these musicals can be great/enjoyable to see once, they're usually not worth spending £50-£100 to see repeatedly when you can just watch the movie or whatever it may be. They could never have the ridiculous success of something like The Book of Mormon or Hamilton, because the reason shows like that become such monster hits is because they're unexpectedly effective and gamechangers. They're the kind of shows that make you want to tell your friends to go and see immediately. You can't replicate the experience of seeing those stories being told anywhere but in the theatre. I feel like that's one reason Wicked has been such a huge success. It has the best of both worlds. It has a link to an incredibly famous piece - The Wizard of Oz - but is a unique story and you can't replicate the feeling of watching Wicked by watching The Wizard of Oz. It has the commercial appeal to draw tourists in and at the same time is giving them something new.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 13:14:16 GMT
Yes, unwilling to take risks - both creators and producers. Lack of ambition or, perhaps, fear of ambition. It extends right down to the fringe which should be all about risk-taking and experimentation and new thinking. And yet the material we're seeing - like, most recently, Miss Atomic Bomb and 27 - is stale and hackneyed and dead on arrival. Could it be as simple as musical theatre being more deeply imbedded in the creative culture of America than it is here? The best of America's composers and writers are working on musicals - doesn't seem to be the case here. Here competent but deeply uninspired people like Stiles and Drew or Gary Barlow are top of the heap despite (because of?) their lack of originality. These are the creatives who are supported by the theatre establishment because, I suppose, they seem safe. The results speak for themselves. Yes, I think it's also a result of the fact that writers are being forced to think small. If you think big as a beginning writer, you're almost punishing yourself because no one will want to put it on. As I mentioned above, producers don't want to (or just can't) put on shows with more than a handful of actors. Their argument is that it's incredibly expensive to have a big cast, which is true. But just look at Off-Broadway. They put on tons of shows with big casts. Why is it that they can do it, but we can't?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 14:18:11 GMT
Simply put its down to greed on the Producers part. It the nature of the world we live in now. The people with the money want more money so they'll only invest in something they can see an easy recoup or profit out of. No-ones brave enough take a risk on anything creative anymore.
|
|
7,183 posts
|
Post by Jon on Apr 30, 2017 15:04:27 GMT
The likes of Dear Evan Hansen, Hamillton, Fun Home etc started off Broadway or in regional theatre with commercial enhancement so they are able to refine the show before it's ready to go to Broadway. I think the likes of the National, Donmar etc don't really have the resources to do an original musical as it's very expensive. The biggest success was Matilda from the RSC and also Sunny Afternoon which originated at the Hampstead Theatre.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 15:11:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 15:15:10 GMT
I'm relieved to hear that people in the industry are actually aware that there's a major problem and are trying to do something about it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 17:17:50 GMT
I'm glad they're trying to do something about it. But I think the problem is more structural. From my own brief experience as a writer so far I have found that it's hard for newcomers to break into the industry, however small scale. Myself and many other writers I know are unsuccessful in merely getting fringe producers to reply to a simple e-mail. It's very discouraging. And when you do get someone to reply, they tell you that they can't put it on because a cast of fifteen is too much. (They say that without having done so much as read a 5 sentence synopsis). If a cast about half the size of a West End show is too much, then that puts serious limits on your creativity.
As mentioned above, it seems they'd rather put on Stiles & Drewe shows for the rest of eternity instead of giving new people a chance. Nothing wrong with Stiles & Drewe, but their shows are hardly revolutionary.
|
|
5,059 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Apr 30, 2017 19:35:13 GMT
Remember that musical theatre is culturally American and more specifically Jewish, we have no such heritage like the Americans it isn't In our DNA, we had the British mega musicals of the 1980's, that ironically saved Broadway, before this very little, maybe a handful.
It was Gershwin that wrestled back control of the American musical in the 1990's.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 21:17:13 GMT
It was Gershwin that wrestled back control of the American musical in the 1990's. He died in 1937 so it was a supreme effort.
|
|
5,059 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Apr 30, 2017 21:36:35 GMT
Read Frank Rich's New York Times review of Crazy For You.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2017 22:00:46 GMT
Read Frank Rich's New York Times review of Crazy For You. I'd place it earlier, in the 1989/90 season with City of Angels and Grand Hotel, the latter being the first American show to reach over 1000 Broadway performances since Big River four years earlier (and with Les Miserables, Phantom and Me & My Girl doing the same in between).
|
|
5,059 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Apr 30, 2017 22:32:39 GMT
To quote Frank Rich directly;
"In his review in The New York Times, Frank Rich wrote, "When future historians try to find the exact moment at which Broadway finally rose up to grab the musical back from the British, they just may conclude that the revolution began last night. The shot was fired at the Shubert Theater, where a riotously entertaining show called Crazy for You uncorked the American musical’s classic blend of music, laughter, dancing, sentiment and showmanship with a freshness and confidence rarely seen during the Cats decade . . . Crazy for You scrapes away decades of cabaret and jazz and variety-show interpretations to reclaim the Gershwins’ standards, in all their glorious youth, for the dynamism of the stage."[1]
Miss Saigon was the end of the British mega musical, valiant attempts was made with Witches of Eastwick, Martin Guerre and Aspects of Love, however Sunset Boulevard tried but was a mess on the production side.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 0:22:22 GMT
I don't think we can use musical theatre being in the American DNA as an excuse though. We manage to churn out quality British cinema year after year, despite that being an industry established in Hollywood.
|
|
2,702 posts
|
Post by viserys on May 1, 2017 4:52:36 GMT
I don't think we can use musical theatre being in the American DNA as an excuse though. We manage to churn out quality British cinema year after year, despite that being an industry established in Hollywood. Perhaps, but cinema falls more under acting which is what Britain has been great at since the days of Shakespeare. How many leading parts in American movies and TV-series are played by Brits? Britain is also great at new plays - much more so than Broadway I'd say. I sometimes have a sense that British authors would rather sit down and write a play when they have something to say than try to compose a musical, as Americans would do. Stuff like Evan Hansen for example - the sense of alienation in a world awash in social media, a teenager struggling with social anxiety, etc., sounds like material for a play to me rather than a musical. ALW was a very rare talent when it came to coming up with amazing melodies and had courage to take risks with insane ideas like dancing cats and rollerskating trains. These days most British musicals are adaptations of mediocre movies nobody has really been waiting to re-visit and there are hardly any songs that stick out. The success of Dreamgirls, which was selling like hot cakes before it even opened, shows there's demand for musicals, but they need GOOD MUSIC. I may sound like an old fart here, but I think music in general has degenerated in the last 20-30 years, ever since the advent of "House" and "Techno", which is basically just computer-generated cr*p. Until then songs stuck out through catchy and instantly memorable melodies. You'd hear a new track and it would stick in your brain and after a few turns, you'd have memorized half the song already. But personally I find most of modern pop music instantly forgettable, lots of noisy beats and very little in terms of melodies (no matter if it's upbeat stuff like Rihanna, Beyonce and their ilk, or the present endless deluge of hipster boys with guiters who spend an entire album whining about luuurve). What this has to do with musicals? Well, I think as long as there was a worldwide demand for great melodies, composers would be focused on coming up with melodies, find great tunes that stick in the brain. These days with music in general being cr*p so often, there seems to be far less effort to create really good melodies, that stick with you and pack an emotional punch. I wanted to love Evan Hansen so badly, as I am also struggling with social anxiety, but I'm afraid the songs just don't do much for me, it's all bland and at times noisy guitar pop. When he goes on about trees falling in the woods forever and ever in "Waving through a window", I just want to shout "Oh get on with it". Right now I'm utterly in love with "Groundhog Day" as I find Tim Minchin has not only written good melodies but also very good lyrics (another thing I found lacking in EH) and "Night will come" makes me tear up every time. Anyway, I've disgressed to Broadway now, but generally I just think that there's a lack of really good songs and melodies on both sides of the pond, but an awful lot of fairly generic stuff. I found myself getting excited about "Bat out of Hell" simply because I loved the idea of seeing great rock tunes on stage. What can be done about it? I don't know. Beyond smaller immediate measures like better funding for new productions, more risk by producers to try unusual things instead of playing it safe, I think there would need to be a big change in music in general and a return to the importance of good melodies and smart lyrics.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2017 5:03:26 GMT
Acting is definitely part of it, but if I think about a British movie like Ex Machina for example: really good, unique sci-fi film that manages to stand up there with the recent American offerings like Arrival and Her. One Irish actor, one Swedish actor and one American actor. If British minds can conjure an innovative, interesting movie like that, then I don't see why they shouldn't be able to conjure up innovative and interesting musicals.
As for Dear Evan Hansen, whilst I would say the score has more to offer than the vast majority of new British scores, I do think it's a weak example of what Broadway can do. There's a couple of nice songs in there but a lot of it is very samey-sounding. The credit to that show should really be for the originality and the performances.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on May 1, 2017 6:32:52 GMT
Simply put its down to greed on the Producers part. It the nature of the world we live in now. The people with the money want more money so they'll only invest in something they can see an easy recoup or profit out of. No-ones brave enough take a risk on anything creative anymore. And I thought I knew a little bit about theatre history. Please tell me who the Producers were who wanted LESS money? Please point to the shows that guaranteed an easy return. You are showing your political leanings that colour how you see everything. I would add that like many in society you have no understanding why PROFIT is ESSENTIAL in EVERY business.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on May 1, 2017 7:09:42 GMT
Simply put its down to greed on the Producers part. It the nature of the world we live in now. The people with the money want more money so they'll only invest in something they can see an easy recoup or profit out of. No-ones brave enough take a risk on anything creative anymore. You are showing your political leanings that colour how you see everything. I would add that like many in society you have no understanding why PROFIT is ESSENTIAL in EVERY business.
You're doing exactly the same thing with your Toryspeak - talk about hypocrisy!!
|
|
848 posts
|
Post by duncan on May 1, 2017 7:26:10 GMT
I'm not sure its Toryspeak to point out the necessity for profit. Its general knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on May 1, 2017 7:38:12 GMT
I'm not sure its Toryspeak to point out the necessity for profit. Its general knowledge. It is to anyone who's tried to run such a BUSINESS. It is depressing how little that is understood. A few people on here might like to think about the role PROFIT has played in theatre over the years. You can dismiss that as political speak but you can't deny how fundamental that is, as the original poster did by calling it greed.
|
|
2,702 posts
|
Post by viserys on May 1, 2017 7:57:37 GMT
I think it goes both ways: Yes, profit is important for producers, nobody denies that. If a producer loses money on shows two or three times in a row, he will not produce again. If he makes a hefty profit, he can invest more money in new productions. Cameron Mackintosh got so insanely rich on the massive profits of the 80s blockbusters that he could later invest money in riskier things like Betty Blue Eyes or Half a Sixpence. ALW can write whatever he likes and sink money with stuff like Love Never Dies thanks to earlier profits and invest in something like The Other Palace (if that will yield hits down the line we cannot tell yet)
But: There has been an undeniable trend towards "playing it safe" by milking franchises or relying on the name of big pop stars and/or famous movies. Take something like The Bodyguard for example: A successful movie, so a "tried and tested" story that seemed to work and the back catalogue of one of the greatest singers of the last decades with hits like "I will always love you", "I wanna dance with somebody" and so on. Which seems a much much safer bet for producers than, say, give a young composer a chance who has written a brand-new story with fresh music about a contemporary issue. That doesn't mean that The Bodyguard was necessarily bad, it was mildly entertaining to be sure, but it also sounds like something that was decided in boardrooms rather than came out of an artists' inspiration. Much like the awful by-the-numbers Rocky which I saw in Hamburg and which burned quickly on Broadway.
And as snutte's earlier list shows: Taking risks IS still rewarded. The most successful shows on Broadway recently were shows that had original topics and sounded bonkers on papers, like a musical about two young Mormons in Africa, telling the story of Alexander Hamilton in modern rap and hip hop or taking a minor part from War and Peace and turning it into a bizarre party piece where the audience is part of the action. That's the part that I currently find lacking in London. Why can't "we" come up with something fresh like that anymore?
|
|
1,249 posts
|
Post by joem on May 1, 2017 10:34:04 GMT
Not a huge expert on musicals but I do have a thought on this. I think the problem actually stems from the success of the British film industry. This has largely come from highly successful low budget films with a plucky underdog(s) fighting against the odds and, normally, winning. Brassed Off, The Full Monty (especially) etc
The second strain of success comes from quirky Britishness as seen through the eyes of Hollywood - Hugh Grant playing Hugh Grant in a succession of light romantic comedies and so on.
Unfortunately neither of these tallies too well with the traditional idea of the musical - big, bold and brassy. Ideas which work splendidly on the big screen at relatively little cost do not seem to catch the imagination of the worldwide audience for musicals - and adapting small films with a largely national audience is not a recipe for huge success. At least, that's my take on it.
|
|