This is some snarky commentary by Michael Musto. Thoughts? from RC in Austin, Texas
I'm basically bowing and scraping before your fabulous feet and saying "I'm so sorry".
And why am I apologizing? Because I'm old!
I've been around.
I've seen revivals upon revivals upon revivals of the shows you're currently reviving.
In fact, I even saw the originals!
So I'm always writing stuff like, "So-and-so had moments, but she couldn't hold a candle to the role's originator, Dorothy Loudon."
Or, "Miss Movie Star is a natural actress and never false, but excuse me, Cherry Jones was galvanizing in the role 16 years ago, and Miss Movie Star can't make me forget that for a moment."
And it's not fair to people attempting classic roles to have to be compared to those who previously shone in them!
Many years ago!
It's not right that they should have to be held against that imbalanced measuring stick simply because people like me have roamed the earth for decades and have seen (and remember) it all.
To new theatergoers, the current batch are the best ones in the roles--in fact, they're the only ones they've ever seen.
But then again...wait a second, let me think this through....it's probably good to have a sense of history color one's look at new things.
It's hard to evaluate a production without noting the ways it was previously attempted while discerning what's been jazzed up, dumbed down, or maintained.
And besides, if an actor can't sparkle in a part that was magical when someone else did it, they should probably stick to the non classics and just do revivals of the shroud of Turin musical.
Then no one needs to worry about unfair comparisons.
I wonder if he hasn't read the whining that goes on in certain quarters here when one makes a comparison similar to those he describes.
Why one would wish to efface an entire cultural history boggles the mind, but I guess nowadays one can never underestimate the depth and breadth of self-centered immaturity.
If one remakes a film and it's inferior to the original, that is worth noting. In this day and age, anyone can watch the two 'Miracles on 34th Street' back to back and compare.
If there is a revival of "Kelly" however, there is no point comparing it to the original- it's gone. It really doesn't matter if Sutton Foster can't hold a candle to the vivacious and bewitching Anita Gillete who played the part in the original. The review should focus on how Sutton is in the role.
But of course, it's always fun to hear old men ramble on about how much better things used to be.
That's from Musto's blog, not his column. Arthur Bell would probably never have been able to come up with enough for a blog several times a week. Maybe the occasional jeremiad against The Boys in the Band.
Recently I had the pleasure of rereading a lot of Bell's old columns from the late-'70s and the column was really a different beast than his successor's. It was peppered with items like "this specific named bitchy celebrity told me this specific bitchy thing about this other specific named bitchy celebrity while at a party at this other evil celebrity's uptown penthouse."
I haven't missed many columns since Musto took over, but he came in with a downtown focus and evolved in many different directions and gave focus to a gay world that is really an entirely different beast than it was when he started. I can't imagine the past several decades without his chronicles.
I was present at a graduate seminar once when David Schweitzer (an LA-based director who also works in NYC) said that the sole aim of professional criticism in New York was "to protect an idealized past from all new influences."
Having just moved from New York at the time, those words rang true to me. Musto's column merely proves that some things never change.
"If there is a revival of "Kelly" however, there is no point comparing it to the original- it's gone."
If only you took the trouble to think before shooting off your mouth--- that is, if you are capable of thought, of the rational kind, anyway. Yes, there is indeed a point, to show how a role could be, or was, interpreted in different ways. That might be enlightening--- for someone who cares to be enlightened, that is.
"But of course, it's always fun to hear old men ramble on about how much better things used to be."
Actually, it seems to be anything but fun to you and your ilk. And it certainly can't compare to the tantrums of the self-centered crybabies who wail like a child whose rattle is snatched from its hands if someone should dare mention Dorothy Loudon or Dorothy Collins because somehow that will spoil their enjoyment of a contemporary performer. How pathetically absurd. Just when are you/they ever going to grow up?
"And it certainly can't compare to the tantrums of the self-centered crybabies who wail like a child whose rattle is snatched from its hands if someone should dare mention Dorothy Loudon or Dorothy Collins because somehow that will spoil their enjoyment of a contemporary performer. How pathetically absurd."
But how does it compare to the smugness from people for whom nothing will compare to the productions they saw years ago? That is equally as pervasive and no less self-centered.
The above mention of Dorothy Collins lets me unload something here- Bernadette Peters just stank in that second-rate mess from Washington they dared call FOLLIES. And being old enough to have seen Avon Long as Sportin' Life, don't get me STARTED on that recent pile of excresence at the Richard Rodgers. Happy New Year, all!
After Eight, I'm sorry your past comments were brought into this discussion.
Personally and though you and I often disagree, I enjoy your comparisons, especially to shows that ran in New York before I was old enough to visit.
I think such comparisons are absolutely appropriate on this board.
But when professional media critics (and let's be honest, New York theater professionals themselves) are constantly bemoaning the fact that the present is never as good as the past, it is ultimately very stifling to the creative process, not to mention discouraging to the theatergoing public.
Which (in addition to high costs) may be why Manhattan has become more a shopping mall where shows developed elsewhere are displayed than the major source of new material it once was.
(ETA I am speaking in general. As Namo pointed out, the remarks in question come from Musto's blog. Surely Musto is entitled to make any comparisons he likes in that space.)
"But when professional media critics (and let's be honest, New York theater professionals themselves) are constantly bemoaning the fact that the present is never as good as the past, it is ultimately very stifling to the creative process, not to mention discouraging to the theatergoing public. "
Well, we definitely do not see eye to eye, and here is just one more example.
No, I do not think that today's critics mourn for the past, in fact, just the opposite. Their taste and judgment have so declined that they now give raves to any piece of garbage -- and let's not mince words here, garbage is what it is--- that comes down the pike, detritus that would have been booed off the stage by critics 50 years ago.
It is this that is discouraging to the theatregoing public, who are played for suckers and end up feeling deceived and cheated.
It's not idealizing the past that's the problem, it's whitewashing the present.
He's really annoying. I lost any sh*t I gave about his opinions when he sat in front of me at 'The Performers', looked DETERMINED to have the worst time ever before it even started, and then issued his total pan of the show.
I don't get the Musto bashing. It's as if he said something totally ridiculous and shockingly naive.
His little "old man" ramblings sparked this discussion. So I say he touched a nerve, even if I'm sure I get on his nerves, ha!
I happily count myself as one of the creaky fuddy duddies who wield about their canes and choke on their Polident dentures getting all worked up and nostalgic for the past. And I'm only gonna be 35.
When stuff sucks balls, it sucks balls, and today's stuff sucks pelotas. Obviously not all, but a lot of it does. That shouldn't affect anyone else's enjoyment of that which sucks balls.
TODAY'S STUFF ALWAYS SUCKS. It was much better back then. I hope I get to live long enough to see today's stuff become the great art that 2050's shows aren't as good as.
Bea Arthur Nude Sells For Nearly $2 Million At Auction
Drama Desk Award Winners - MATILDA, VANYA AND SONIA, PIPPIN, VIRGINIA WOOLF & More!
John Bantay Talks to Richard Jay-Alexander About Musical Mondays Farewell
STAGE TUBE: MATILDA Cast Performs on The View!
CHUCK Star Zachary Levi and Krysta Rodriguez Set to Lead FIRST DATE
Photo Flash: First Look - Kelly Rowland & Paulina Rubio on THE X FACTOR!
VIDEO: First Trailer for Joseph Gordon-Levitt's DON JON
Gwyneth Paltrow Returns as the Face of Hugo Boss' Latest Scent
VAMPIRE WEEKEND Tops Chart with Second No. 1 Album
iWatch Update: Apple's Wearable iOS Device Coming in 2014?
BWW Blog: Leah Edwards - Practice. Perform. Repeat
BWW Reviews: Pauline Koner, American Original
VIDEO: Must Watch - Mel Brooks AMERICAN MASTERS on PBS May 20!
joined:3/4/06
Posted: 12/27/12 at 10:30am