I'll glady take Michael Feingold's job

[FindingNamo]

"[A]fter a week that had included Ghost, Don't Dress for Dinner, and Leap of Faith, I realized that I didn't hate theatergoing at all: I just no longer saw the point of going to Broadway. My seven days of torment had taught me that the theater was fine, but that Broadway was irrelevant to it."
Oh yes he DID

[My Oh My]

I'd consider that article scandalous had it not touched on the truth, a truth that I've been experiencing steadily and increasingly for the last decade, making me seem like an endlessly dissatisfied, professional complainer.

The way things are, theatre critics may want to consider reclassifying their job description accordingly because when people complain as much as we have, they really do so because they care. Those who accept everything without questioning it and without a standard to look to, to draw from, to become inspired by, to be uniquely moved by are free to like what has evolved on stage before them but they can't possibly be considered "theatre fans."

Not when everything unique and most effectively a part of live theatre is being every day undermined and a new standard accepted that has nothing to do with theatre art and would have the same effect on screen, through a pair of speakers, or on a Blu-Ray or DVD.

[henrikegerman]

I would agree with you My Oh My if it weren't for the fact that there always has been and there always will be a lot of **** on stage. And while I admire Feingold as a critic, he knows that just as well as anyone.

[D2]

As usual, Feingold makes a very astute observation. And having seen the production of THREEPENNY... mentioned in the article, I agree with his assessment of that production -- it was the first time I ever "got" the show. Feingold's translation is a good one; Marvell Rep gave it an outstanding production that was edgy, raw, very much alive and very, very theatrical. Marvell is a company to watch.

[My Oh My]

But the main point is that fewer and fewer people are invested in it the way people traditionally had been that has helped preserve the art form.

Lately, it's no longer about keeping that distinct art form alive. It's about defying it. It is in-style to think of everything stagey, theatrical, well crafted and adhering to basic standards that honor the art form as too this and too that and never "real" enough when the only thing unreal is their totally missing the point and wishing to see some chick flick mimicked on stage. Why? Not because of hopes to advance and built upon what has already played those legendary stages by looking to them for inspiration.

But because people have heard of and probably watched the film and recognition and familiarity is what Broadway needs and what audiences' ever dying interest in musicals can just barely tolerate (and ever hope to comprehend) for a max 2hrs, which should ensure lots of $$$. What were projects infused with passion and driven by inspiration are now soulless excuses.

But you are, in a sense, right--just like crap persists so does good stuff. It's just that one can't help fearing the possibility everything you love about musical theatre is being celebrated less and less and you begin to feel indifference while walking down that legendary street that was like a theatre lover's Disneyland.

It's like they invaded Disneyland and fixed it to mimic the ordinary, boring, everyday world. Give back my rose tinted glasses!!!

[Borstalboy]

Great article.

[HogansHero]

I think several things are being confused here. First, Michael is not writing about the art form, but about how much of Broadway is not really theatre but simply entertainment. That's not an "art form" issue; it's about real estate. Second, he's writing about Broadway theatre in general, not just the musical theatre phenomenon. Third, as noted elsewhere, there has always been crap on Broadway so this is not a new concept. Finally, the discussion gets kinda sketchy when it veers into notions of preserving what someone likes, because it can't really be about that-it has to be about art, not taste.

[JoeKv99]

I was just re-reading The Abominable Showman this week and hearing how tawdry Broadway had become with crappy musicals that trade on the name recognition of the show or the "stars" in them, the timidity of producers at funding truly original, classy productions. Surely this fabled street is on it's last legs and can't keep presenting such trashy, strictly-for-a-buck commercial fare?

Or at least that's what the people in the book said, about legendary producer David Merrick and the Broadway of the 50's and 60's.

[FindingNamo]

Kaufman and Hart's "The Fabulous Invalid" pre-dates that by decades.

But that's not the exact point of the article anyway.

[JoeKv99]

Yeah I know. the point of the article was for Michael Feingold to explain how much better taste he has than us.

[Borstalboy]

MMMMMNo, I don't think that's right, either.

[Kad]

What is the point of this article? Because all I can glean from it is the not very groundbreaking notion that the really innovative stuff isn't on Broadway.

And that being a critic is so hard, you guys.

[FindingNamo]

No, that's not it either.