Theatre as Art or Entertainment?
Theatre as Art or Entertainment?
RentBoy86
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/15/05
#1Theatre as Art or Entertainment?
Posted: 12/5/06 at 8:47pm
Personally, I'm all for theatre as art. I think theatre should say something and have a specific point of view. I think, because of the medium, that it lends itself more to being bold and thought provoking. I don't enjoy theatre as fluff. That's not to say I only like serious musicals, there are plenty of musicals that can be "light and fluffy" but they still have a very serious meaning behind them.
How do you feel? Do you prefer entertainment or art?
#1re: Theatre as Art or Entertainment?
Posted: 12/5/06 at 8:52pmI think that I can be both. Some plays and musicas are just fun. Many have real themes.
ashbash1990
Broadway Star Joined: 10/15/06
#2re: Theatre as Art or Entertainment?
Posted: 12/5/06 at 8:52pmI agree with you, however, i think that in order to get a playwright's or director's or even an actor's point across, the show needs to be somewhat entertaining...
What a night! I was in more laps than a napkin!
RentBoy86
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/15/05
#3re: Theatre as Art or Entertainment?
Posted: 12/5/06 at 8:57pmNo, I'm not negating "entertainment" as for as being entertaining. For instance, I think Caroline, or Change is very entertaining, at the same time it's thought provoking and makes you think. I think RENT is the same way (or at least was). However, I think Wedding Singer is pure fluff. There's no big message or theme it's trying to get across. And I think it's obvious. Yeah sure, it's entertainment, but what's the point of it?
#4re: Theatre as Art or Entertainment?
Posted: 12/5/06 at 9:00pmI much prefer theater as an art. IMO, a show fares better if puts a point across to the audience, even if there is a lot of fluff. Shows with a confused message tend to be boring and unmemorable.
"In theater, the process of it is the experience. Everyone goes through the process, and everyone has the experience together. It doesn't last - only in people's memories and in their hearts. That's the beauty and sadness of it. But that's life - beauty and the sadness. And that is why theater is life." - Sherie Rene Scott
COOOOLkid
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/15/05
#5re: Theatre as Art or Entertainment?
Posted: 12/5/06 at 9:00pm
^ A bit ironic coming from a person named DefyingGravity11
I'm more toward entertainment. I think art does lead to entertainment somewhat.
But like films, there will always be artistic films made for that reason, and entertaining movies made to entertain (make $) the audiences.
"Hey, you! You're the worst thing to happen to musical theatre since Andrew Lloyd Webber!"
-Family Guy
Updated On: 12/5/06 at 09:00 PM
RentBoy86
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/15/05
#7re: Theatre as Art or Entertainment?
Posted: 12/5/06 at 9:16pmI first thought about this after seeing "Sweeney Todd" on Broadway, and then the next night seeing "The Wedding Singer." I know both have thier ravid fans on this board, but after I saw "Sweeney Todd" I was so moved by it. I thought, "This is the best of American musical theater." That's what Broadway is suppose to be about it. It is the epicenter of the American musical. Sweeney is both art and entertainment. It's just a beautiful and stunning piece of theater. All of the performances were brillant. Then, I saw Wedding Singer. While I was entertained, I didn't think it belonged on Broadway. Not because it was "light" fun, but because it just didn't DO anything. I felt like if I hadn't seen it, I would still be the same person. I just don't see the need for fluff. I think it has just watered down our society.
#8re: Theatre as Art or Entertainment?
Posted: 12/5/06 at 9:53pm
As long as it's not THE WEDDING SINGER, I'll take either and both.
"Entertainment" like that of THE WEDDING SINGER does not have a $110 price tag.
"Winning a Tony this year is like winning Best Attendance in third grade: no one will care but the winner and their mom."
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
Updated On: 12/5/06 at 09:53 PM
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
#9re: Theatre as Art or Entertainment?
Posted: 12/5/06 at 10:05pm
Both. Sometimes all I want is to be entertained. Othertimes I want to think and try and find the deeper meaning. I find nothing wrong with either. Even if something is pure fluff, as long as I'm entertained and having fun it doesn't matter that it didn't have any metaphors or symbolism.
Edited to say that this topic is somewhat hard to debate until we all agree on the definition of art, which I've found is impossible to define.
Updated On: 12/5/06 at 10:05 PM
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/31/69
#10re: Theatre as Art or Entertainment?
Posted: 12/5/06 at 10:14pmIts both, obviously. Thats what makes it so fabulous. I mean, its obvious that some shows are just made for entertainment while others are true pieces of work and art. I mean, i wouldnt call Legally Blonde art, but hey. thats just me.
ThankstoPhantom
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/13/05
#11re: Theatre as Art or Entertainment?
Posted: 12/5/06 at 10:17pm
I'm also on the both wagon...
But I feel that Entertainment geared should at least be artfully done.
How to properly use its/it's:
Its is the possessive. It's is the contraction for it is...
Junior
Stand-by Joined: 4/12/06
#12re: Theatre as Art or Entertainment?
Posted: 12/5/06 at 10:50pmDefinitely art over entertainment, although I personally view art as being entertaining. But I agree that Broadway has just gotten too commercial (I know its a business, and people have to get paid, so don't start. I understand why it's in the state it is now, I just don't agree with the outrageousness of it) and I'm SOOO tired of all of the movie based crap that is being produced because its a popular movie and will draw people in. I'm not saying that ALL of these shows are pointless (i.e. Color Purple (based on a book too, not just a movie), even Hairspray has a message to get across) but I totally agree with Wedding Singer being pointless. I go to the theatre to see thought provoking shows that give you something to take with you, and it saddens me that these types of shows are becoming less frequent. But at the same time, I know these shows employ actors, designers, etc that need work, so for that aspect of it, I'm thankful. I just miss new, original shows, and highly prefer them to mindless, "fluffy" shows that abound today.
Julian2
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/10/06
#13re: Theatre as Art or Entertainment?
Posted: 12/5/06 at 10:59pm
Both. But there is a difference between fluff and entertainment. Such as Hello Dolly!, which falls more on the entertainment side. But its artfully done, there is a well constructed plot and there are characters you care about. As opposed to The Wedding Singer, which from most accounts sounds like fluff. Even today you can find entertaining shows that aren't simple fluff, like DRS, Drowsy Chaperone, and The Producers. Both are important, both the entertaining and the "artfull", but the emtertainment must be arfully done, to be even worth considering.
I have several names, one is Julian2. I am also The Opps Girl. But cross me, and I become Bitch Dooku!
Updated On: 12/5/06 at 10:59 PM
#14re: Theatre as Art or Entertainment?
Posted: 12/5/06 at 11:21pm
To COOOOLkid and Broadwayboy2631, I'm not trying to exacerbate the situation, but:
It's defyingravity11, not DefyingGravity11.
Even though I am a huge fan of Wicked, it does not mean that I cannot identify and enjoy what the frequent posters on this board would consider to be complex, legit theater. I became a fan of Wicked long before the craze hit and fell in love with it because of the messages it presents, not because of the spectacle (and IMO the spectacle of Wicked does not come close to that of other "fluffy" shows on Broadway today).
I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just wanted to defend myself 
"In theater, the process of it is the experience. Everyone goes through the process, and everyone has the experience together. It doesn't last - only in people's memories and in their hearts. That's the beauty and sadness of it. But that's life - beauty and the sadness. And that is why theater is life." - Sherie Rene Scott
#15re: Theatre as Art or Entertainment?
Posted: 12/5/06 at 11:24pm
I became a fan of Wicked long before the craze hit and fell in love with it because of the messages it presents,
Bull****.
"Winning a Tony this year is like winning Best Attendance in third grade: no one will care but the winner and their mom."
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
#16re: Theatre as Art or Entertainment?
Posted: 12/5/06 at 11:27pmActually, that's true.
"In theater, the process of it is the experience. Everyone goes through the process, and everyone has the experience together. It doesn't last - only in people's memories and in their hearts. That's the beauty and sadness of it. But that's life - beauty and the sadness. And that is why theater is life." - Sherie Rene Scott
#17re: Theatre as Art or Entertainment?
Posted: 12/5/06 at 11:28pmYou win! Case closed.
"Winning a Tony this year is like winning Best Attendance in third grade: no one will care but the winner and their mom."
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
RentBoy86
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/15/05
#18re: Theatre as Art or Entertainment?
Posted: 12/5/06 at 11:29pm
[I actually agree and wouldn't say "Wicked" relies on spectacle. Most of the people I know that love it, love it because of the music, most haven't even seen the show.]
I'm not saying there can't be "fluff." But shouldn't Broadway be the best in musical theater? What happened to that prestige? I mean c'mon. Brookyln? The Wedding Singer? Tarzan? Those are such pieces of sh*t shows. Brooklyn at least had an attempt at a message. And we all know Tarzan's message because they beat it into your head, but are they artfully done? No. Art is subjective. And as George says in "Sunday...": "Art isn't easy."
I would say "The Producers" "Drowsy Chaperone" etc are all artfully done fluff. Sure they don't really bring up any major concerns, but they're still witty and charming without being so obvious about their humor (Wedding Singer).
This is more of a "vent" than an actual arguement or whatnot, but if all the producers that invest in Broadway really cared about the theater, then why would shows like "Ring of Fire" even be considered? I applaud Twyla for attempting something new and daring and putting a new spin on things. And I applaud John Doyle for his vision. Sure, you may not agree with it, but at least it's something new.
#19re: Theatre as Art or Entertainment?
Posted: 12/5/06 at 11:38pm
Rentboy, the ongoing debate, I think, lies in that yes, what you say is what it should be; but the highest art isn't what'll sell the most tickets, and that, at the end of the day, is what Broadway is about. Unfortunately.
Personally, my preference tends to be in the heavier and provocative art, but I don't think I would ever want all one over the other. I think that there is a lot to be said for fluff that is artfully done and well-presented, because there's much commendable about escapism and entertainment for entertainment's sake -- for theater that is just fun. In certain cases; that's not to say anything's excusable.
Julian2
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/10/06
#20re: Theatre as Art or Entertainment?
Posted: 12/5/06 at 11:39pm
I would say "The Producers" "Drowsy Chaperone" etc are all artfully done fluff. Sure they don't really bring up any major concerns, but they're still witty and charming without being so obvious about their humor (Wedding Singer).
Not to quibble about technicalities, but I feel they are artful entertainment, calling it fluff IMO, degrades it. Pointless pieces that are not well done and have no point, that is fluff.
I have several names, one is Julian2. I am also The Opps Girl. But cross me, and I become Bitch Dooku!
#21re: Theatre as Art or Entertainment?
Posted: 12/5/06 at 11:39pmRentBoy86, I completely agree (especially about Ring of Fire). I guess we just have to remember that art is subjective and every show is targeted at a certain type of audience who will enjoy it (regardless of how it does at the box office). In the case of jukebox musicals, I feel that it is near impossible for them to communicate a real message or to really be "artful" because there is rarely a good marrige between the score and book. Perhapse the producers believe that these shows will sell and just don't care about the "art" aspect at all.
"In theater, the process of it is the experience. Everyone goes through the process, and everyone has the experience together. It doesn't last - only in people's memories and in their hearts. That's the beauty and sadness of it. But that's life - beauty and the sadness. And that is why theater is life." - Sherie Rene Scott
#22re: Theatre as Art or Entertainment?
Posted: 12/5/06 at 11:40pmdouble post
"In theater, the process of it is the experience. Everyone goes through the process, and everyone has the experience together. It doesn't last - only in people's memories and in their hearts. That's the beauty and sadness of it. But that's life - beauty and the sadness. And that is why theater is life." - Sherie Rene Scott
Updated On: 12/5/06 at 11:40 PM
#23re: Theatre as Art or Entertainment?
Posted: 12/6/06 at 12:29am
The funny thing about this that I've learned through this course I'm taking on Sondheim and the Modern Musical Theatre is that Sondheim, who writes shows that are considered to be the most artistic and intelligent in musical theatre by many, talks in interviews about how he has thought processes like, "This would be a fun story to tell. This would be entertaining." He doesn't talk about being like, "This is an important message and I need to write something about it."
As to the original question, I definitely think it should be both.
RentBoy86
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/15/05
#24re: Theatre as Art or Entertainment?
Posted: 12/6/06 at 1:03amEm, but that's my point. I have no problem with Wicked. I think it has great potential and, for the most part, is a good representation of "the great American musical." It's something everyone can enjoy and it actually has characters and a plot that you care about. However, I don't understand how the producers/composers could let some of it slide. Why not develop Fieyro more? Give him a solo song? Why not fix some of the lyrics? Why change the ending to a "happier" ending? Why not at least explore the option of the original ending? I don't get why producers, etc. don't spend enough time tweaking their show, rather than just sort of putting a bunch of **** together and throwing it up on stage and seeing what sticks, ya know?
Videos