Flop Sweat

by 99 Seats

A few years back, Cats was going to close and it was kind of a big deal (For you youngsters out there, there used to be a Broadway show about singing cats. No, I'm not talking about The Lion King.) I hadn't seen it and neither had my roommate, a big musical theatre fan, and he was pushing me to go see it before it closed. I refused. My argument then was: "I missed Angels in America when it ran on Broadway, so I can't justify making an effort to see Cats." All of which was true. But it wasn't quite the truth.

Anyone who knows me, or has seen my DVD collection, knows I like bad movies. Jeez, last year I saw Legion. In the theatre. And I nearly went to see Orphan. I like me some bad, terrible, trainwreck movies. Some, I even wind up loving, like Joe Vs. The Volcano or Bubba Ho-Tep. Others...well...they're just a good time. Spending two hours watching Nic Cage in a ridiculous wig? My idea of fun.

But bad theatre? Nope. I hate it. I hate the very concept of it. Not so-bad-it's-good theatre or tongue-in-cheek cheese, like Toxic Avenger (which I had a blast at), but clanking failures? I can't do it. A theatre teacher I had in college told me that theatre must justify its theft of time. Theatre, he argued, was a time-intensive, not at all convenient, required dressing up (back in the day, anyways). It asked a lot of its audience and needed to repay that with worth. This has stuck with me and leaves me irrationally angry at bad theatre. It smacks of disrespect to me. So I don't like to seek out flops or trainwrecks or even popular eyesores. I understand the fascination. But I hold back. A couple of seasons back, I saw a absolute horror of a trainwreck of a disaster. I never walk out and I did. Mostly because the actors seemed so embarassed and I was embarassed for them and couldn't stand the idea of sitting there while they took their bows to an unhappy house. That's how I deal with theatrical failures.

However. There's this. Everybody's talking about it. Everybody.

Now my several parts are in total conflict. I'm a comic book geek, so I want to check it out. It sounds like a technical mess/marvel, and the tech geek wants to check it out. I feel like there is still a chance for it to be transcendently good. (The comic book geek wants that, too.) And the cranky theatre guy wants to see it...so that he may rag on it more eloquently. But mostly...I kind of just feel sorry for it. For the folks involved. For the folks who do see it. As much as I like schadenfreude, it's not a justification for the theft of time. Somewhere, deep in me, is still a bit of reverence for what we do, a desire for it to be taken seriously. Things like this work against that.

So...I don't know. If someone offered me a free ticket, would I go? Would you? Would you pay for it? On TDF? Pop quiz, kid: What. Would. You. Do?

Comments

[Jack Worthing]

Never. Never never never never. I'd rather see a David Hare play starring Nicole Kidman. That, amazingly, would be less craven and condescending than this.

[adam807]

I don't think "things like this work against that" at all! THIS may, but "things like this" do not. There should always be equal places in theatre for insane spectacle and for intimate storytelling. It seems quaint now but remember "Phantom of the Opera" was state of the art in its day, and it was a big fucking deal. Whatever you or I may personally think of the artistic merit of that show, it is STILL RUNNING. It is a story that has obviously struck a chord with people and those people want to be entertained with everything 1988 technology can throw at them. I want a Broadway that can sustain that, and "Scottsboro Boys" and "Bloody Bloody" and "Avenue Q" (or, okay, a New World Stages) and plays with Nicole Kidman and "August Osage County" without her. I don't believe that "entertaining" is the enemy of "good," and I'm hoping at this point that "Spider-Man" is at least entertaining. And if it makes money and employs a gajillion people, so much the better! I'll definitely be buying a ticket (previews are discounted), so I'll let you know!

[adam807]

Oh, and for the record for the readers - I am that roommate, and I did see Cats (at the 2nd-to-last-performance, which was an Actors Fund benefit, so my money was at least going to a good cause) and it was fucking terrible. But I also saw Angels in America twice on Broadway and once on tour so my scales were a little more in balance.

Two of my greatest theatrical regrets were missing Carrie and In My Life, the biggest flops in my lifetime, and I confess I'm always kind of looking for the next one. But for whatever reason I actually want Spider-Man to be good. I love a lot of Julie's work and I have some friends in the show and I find myself rooting for it and enjoying the schadenfreude simultaneously. And I guess we'll see if Carrie has some merit when MCC does it...

[99]

Actually much agreed! I hope this didn't come off as anti-spectacle! I love spectacle! I love over-the-top-ness and grand vision! I do! I just don't love when it doesn't work. If you can balance the schadenfreude and the enjoyment, more power to you. Somehow, I find I can do that better with film. I sat watching Legion thinking of all the money thrown away on that film, wondering how big Paul Bettany's mortgage must be to make it worth it, and still kind of enjoying the nearly hallucinogenic experience of it. When it comes to theatre, I just feel bad for everybody.

And, okay, I kind of wanted to see In My Life. That did sound like fun.

[Esther]

For free, sure I'd see it! (In fact, I'll probably see it on my next trip to New York - and pay full price.)

I'm in a slightly different situation. I don't live in New York and can't get there very often, maybe a few long weekends a year. So I buy my tickets in advance, in the orchestra to give my aging knees some leg room. I pay full price or use Playbill or Broadway Box discounts.

But I love going to a wide range of theatre. Last month I saw 11 shows in New York. So yeah, I'd see Spider-Man and the David Hare play and Cats and Angels in America and some off-Broadway plays, too.

I'm fortunate in that when I get to New York, it doesn't have to be an either/or choice. I'm only limited by the number of shows in a weekend. If only they had Friday matinees!

[Jack Worthing]

I don't believe 'entertaining' is the enemy of 'good' either. I never said anything about that. But in my experience, theatre created for no other reason than to make money is rarely much good. It doesn't mean it has to be difficult or make the producers go broke, but if the genesis is purely someone sitting down wondering how to milk an idea for all it's worth? No thanks.

[Adam807]

but actually, the insane capitalization on Spider-Man means it almost CAN'T make money. So maybe it's been created to entertain? I'm over-simplifying and being pollyannaish of course, but it's to counter your cynicism!

[Rocco]

I tried to see CATS the month it closed and the Wintergarden box office guy was super rude to me and I was all, "dude, F you. Its CATS", and walked away.

But now I regret it. CATS will be a theatre reference till the day I die and after. So will SPIDERMAN, whether it ranks as the biggest flop, or a Broadway game changer. That's why I'll see it. Not to mention, if they fix the issues, the spectacle sounds pretty fantastic.

But you won't catch me at one of those previews. I value my life to much.

[Rocco]

oh, and its nice to say that schadenfreude is not a justification for the theft of time, but I never laughed so hard in the theatre as I did at IN MY LIFE. Worth every penny.

[Josh James]

For the record, BUBBA-HOTEP is a classic film, a for real cult classic that is in no way bad ...

Worst, absolutely worst Broadway show I've ever seen was the Broadway revival of Jesus Christ Superstar, back in 99 or 00 ... none of the leads could sing, except for one, and he was an understudy, there was massive drug syringes, tv screens and lots of bad posturing and off-key notes of song ... it was terrible, and not in a fun way.

BUBBA-HOTEP, on the other hand, has Ossie Davis and a killer mummy, what's not to love? And Bruce Campbell, who makes every movie better.

[Leigh]

I think Adam807 had fantastic and well-articulated response in favor of spectacle and I'm glad you agree with him. I too love spectacle when it's good, and think it has a place on Broadway right alongside the August: Osage Counties and the Bloody Bloody Andrew Jacksons.

My question is: why are we assuming Spiderman will be BAD spectacle? That's not rhetorical, I really am curious. Like everyone, I've read a lot a lot about this Spiderman situation, and I've learned quite a bit about the money and the postponements and the anticipation of the result (whatever that may be) but I haven't heard anything about the actually quality of the show. Have others?

And, you know, I like Spiderman. I like Julie Taymor. I like spectacle. I even kind-of-pretty-much-tolerate U2. So, why believe it won't be good? (I did see that song from it performed on GMA and that was pretty banal, but I'm not willing to write the whole show off yet).

I mean, it probably won't be. But I'd go, in a heartbeat, just to see if it might be.