web counter
 

I Don't Understand Theatre

By Steven Lloyd Wilson | Posted Under Trade News | Comments (33)

batman_live_characters.jpg

I’m sorry for that header picture, but there’s just no way to communicate the abject confusion swirling around my brain. Why is there a traveling show called Batman: Live? It will be debuting in the UK this summer, and is slated to hit America in 2012. I just don’t understand why this exists. I don’t understand who would go see it. I don’t understand why the rights holders would sign off on this visual atrocity that can only hurt the value of their brand. I don’t understand why the Joker looks like a child molester.

(source: SlashFilm)

In the next bit of completely inexplicable theater news, why in the world is there a Broadway play based on Sister Act? Was there such massive demand for a stage musical adaptation of a twenty year old Whoopi Goldberg vehicle? I reiterate the Bat-query: why does this exist?

There was one redeeming feature of the movie, which was Goldberg’s character dragging the closed in nuns out into their community to actually make a difference. They dropped that in the musical in favor of just having the nuns get excited about singing. Because a sixteenth of an inch of depth just wasn’t shallow enough for a musical.

But even more inexplicably is that not only does this exist, but THR covered the debut of it. Someone was paid to go to this, sit through it, and then write the words: “Whoopi Goldberg’s absence is felt, but this bouncy musical eventually gets into the habit in a good way.”

Once you put something on the Internet, it never goes away, and I’d put nude photos of myself up before I posted a quote like that.

(source: THR)

At least an adaptation of Batman and Sister Act have the justification of being based on things with actual plots. But what then is the justification for a Broadway version of Green Day’s American Idiot? If I wanted to pay $100 to sit in a chair and listen to an album I already own surrounded by a thousand strangers, I’d get great seats at a baseball game, listen to my iPod, and at least then I could eat a chili dog and not wear a suit.

Technically the Broadway show is old news since the show is wrapping up its original run now, but there’s fresh news too. The musical is being adapted into a film.

Well, at least it’s not a sequel.

(source: SlashFilm)









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance

← In The Battle Of Batman Vs. Leatherface Vs. Giant Robots, I Think Donnie Yen Wins: A Trade News Round-Up | X-Men: First Class Trailer: Peace Was Never An Option →









Comments

Can't see why anyone would pay to see Batman or Sister Act live...but a crossover featuring both? Sheer brilliance.

Posted by: Wednesday at April 21, 2011 10:07 AM

I always pictured a child molester to look more like
The Riddler.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at April 21, 2011 10:12 AM

I'd watch that, Wednesday. Batman fights crime and blight with gospel songs.

Posted by: sars at April 21, 2011 10:13 AM

So THAT'S what Steve Buscemi has been doing in between seasons of licking Paz Vega's nipples . . . Gay Joker!

Hey, it's work, right Prisco?

Posted by: Kballs at April 21, 2011 10:28 AM

They'll say it's for the kids, like Shakespeare on Ice or something. But it's really for the potheads.

It's always for the potheads.

Posted by: RobP at April 21, 2011 10:30 AM

Quartermaine: I say Melanie -- do you like The Cherry Orchard?

Melanie: Loathe it.

Quartermaine: Oh. Why?

Melanie: All that Russian gloom and doom, and people shooting themselves from loneliness and depressions and that sort of thing. But then, mother says I don't understand comedy. I expect she's right.

(Simon Gray)

Depth is not always a good thing.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at April 21, 2011 10:30 AM

It doesn't say anywhere that it's a musical.

Already better than "Turn Off The Dark".

Posted by: Jay at April 21, 2011 10:33 AM

What you have to understand is this **steps onto ultra judgmental podium**. There are three kinds of people who go to the theatre.
One kind wants to see good drama performed by talented stage actors. If it's a musical, they want to hear the music performed well and see good set design.
The second kind of person wants to see drama only if it's a "name" they can talk about when they go home. See Jane Alexander in A Doll's House? You must be joking. But stick Julia Roberts into A Doll's House where she will stick out like a spare prick at a whore's wedding and these people will trample over each other to see it.
Have you ever sat in a theatre with these people? These are the people who think they're on a Hollywood sit-com set. You lose the first several lines of dialogue because they feel the need to clap and whoop when a name they recognize comes out on stage. I hate these people with a blinding passion.
Similarly with musicals, they want flash and wow and something to talk about because it's not actually about enjoying the theatre experience, it's about telling everyone back home what they saw. That's why the Spiderman musical is still selling out every performance. It doesn't matters that it's crap. It matters that they can say they saw it. SisterAct is made for these people.
There's a third kind of theatre-goer: parents. I have no beef with these people. They are mercilessly dragged to Batman On Ice and other such travesties all the time. I only wonder why there aren't more suicides in that demographic.

Posted by: PaddyDog at April 21, 2011 10:49 AM

BSlim: "I always pictured a child molester to look more like The Riddler. "


The Frank Gorshin version?

It takes a big man to pull off tights, so to speak.

Posted by: BWeaves at April 21, 2011 10:54 AM

Is it wrong that I saw this picture and the song, "Everyone has AIDS" came to mind.

Posted by: Melody Be at April 21, 2011 10:57 AM

I'm not going to defend everything about theater. They do stupid shit just like TV producers and film producers do. Hell, Mel Brooks made a pretty excellent movie about terrible theater producers. (Which became a popular show which, in turn, became a not-as-good-as-the-original-good movie.)

But I love campy musicals. I saw Legally Blonde: The Musical on TV and was hilarious. Also despite taking breaks for songs every other scene, they somehow managed to do a better job of developing the relationship between Elle and not Luke Wilson than the movie did. The Spiderman that didn't involve Julie Taymor or Bono was pretty awesome too. Musicals, with a few rare exceptions, just work so much better when they don't take themselves too seriously.

On the same note, I loved Glee when it was more silly jokes and campy pop covers, with maybe the occasional dramatic moment. As soon every episode turned into a "very special" episode, I realized how stupid it was and lost interest.

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at April 21, 2011 11:13 AM

I've been an avid reader of this site since the early years. I remember the government shutdown. I remember Jeremy C. Fox. This site has been a major influence in the way I view and critique movies. But for a while now, I've noticed a strange disdain for MY chosen medium - theatre. I am drawn to most forms of creative expression, and I can appreciate just about anyone's art without liking it.

BATMAN LIVE is an exception to that rule. It should not be thought of as theatre. At best, it is a live event.

SISTER ACT is a different story. Several friends have seen it and remarked in much the same way as Variety's reviewer. Yes, it is a silly show, but most Broadway shows these days aren't much more than that. They amount to nothing much more than a crappy to middle-of-the-road summer blockbuster. They throw a bunch of money and high notes onstage and people pay to see it.

That is not even remotely close to a fair and complete assessment of theatre. Theatre, like film, covers an increasingly broad spectrum of quality, and it is completely unfair and dismissive to base one's view of a medium on a couple specific productions. I would cringe just as much should a person judge television based solely on the mass-market offerings of the major networks, ignoring the good work being done by many cable outfits.

This is yet another instance of a this site, which I have consistently followed and encouraged other to follow for several years, showing an uncomfortable disdain for theatre. Whether it is making blanket statements about how the form confuses you or not fact checking Julie Taymor theatre resumé before claiming she directed SHREK, it all brings the site down a notch. I was originally drawn to the site's respect for the art of film, but now I am being driven away by it's lack of respect for another. I hope that this does not continue. There are many amazing theatre stories out there that you could read about and share on your site, but as someone rudely told me before when I commented on the Julie Taymor article, this isn't a theatre website. It's a movie review/random list/book review/book review contest/think piece/television/sex column/clip recycling site.

Posted by: Toph at April 21, 2011 11:19 AM

Poison Ivy looks like reason enough to me.

But then again she always does.

Posted by: zeke the pig at April 21, 2011 11:28 AM

What Toph said.

I'd just like to add, that although I too spend most of my days working with/in the theater. It doesn't mean that I think all theater is good. In fact I think most theater is bad, just like most television and film is bad. Batman and Sister Act, like so many shows before them, are examples of producers throwing whatever they can think of at the wall in hopes of making some money.

The whole business is a fledgeling one and that is why you get these kinds of things that you don't understand, and you can't understand why anyone would go see them. Theater is a strange thing, and its hard for me at times to understand why anyone still does it. There is little to no money in it, it can't be mass produced like television or film (unless your something like Menopause the Musical which only kind of worked and made something available but really bad, and eventually cookie cutter) meaning that if you have a long run in a big theater with a good rate of sale you'll be lucky if even a million people see your work - it is a rare show that hits that number, a number that most TV shows hit nightly.

Theater has been relegated to something people are forced to see because there friends are in it, or something that you do on vacation in NYC because its a thing you do there, or something that people go to so they can say they went to it because they are very wealthy and want to seem cultured. So I don't blame you for not understanding theater, I get why you don't understand it. As we move further and further into the technology age it is harder and harder to understand because it become less and less purposeful, people attend to see stunt shows and so stunt shows are produced both bad (Batman, Spiderman) and good (Cirque Du Soleil)

However it is still produced, by people with nothing but passion and less than minimum wage jobs. They work long hours into the wee hours and sacrifice relationships, decent living conditions, and good diet to do it. They live a nomadic lifestyle with no strong friendships and little personal bonds because they believe in what they are doing, and with good reason.

Good theater is hard to find, it is the exception rather than the rule (as it is with all art) but when it is good it can have a bigger more significant impact on you then any film or television show that has ever been made, because ultimately watching someone die on a screen gives you some sense of distance. The camera and the television and your living room all create a safe context for you to view things from but when it happens in front of you. When you've spent a couple hours becoming engrossed by something that is happening in front of you it can have a completely different kind of effect. You can become more involved in and more emotionally connected to characters that are 20 feet in front of you then you can flashing lights on a screen and it is because you share the same space with them and breath the same air as them. There is no where to look away or hide, what happens to them happens to you. When it is good, that 1% of the time when it is really good, it will change who you are for the rest of your life.

But that is good theater, and in a climate where every theater everywhere is doing everything they can just to stay open good theater is a rarity. However I would ask, especially if this is not a theater site, I would ask that you don't go judging theater by two non sensical shit shows that happen to have a high profile. It would be like interacting with nothing but Jersey Shore and Hoarders and then writing an article entitled "I don't understand Television"

It's good to acknowledge that you don't understand, but lets not attack something without understanding it.

Posted by: Dulli1419 at April 21, 2011 12:38 PM

In order:

1) The Batman show is designed as a circus/arena show. Bright costumes and big stunts because it's under a tent (albeit a figurative one if I'm not mistaken). Another company did something similar with a production of Peter Pan touring the world right now that's pretty cool.

2) Because someone convinced Whoopi Goldberg to release the rights to Sister Act. The score is very good and it's no more offensive than the Legally Blonde musical a few years back. The reviews are mixed to good and the lead actress is killing the role Whoopi made famous.

3) Because Billy Joel Armstrong envisioned American Idiot as a stage musical and his record label laughed at him. Then he got investors, mounted his vision, and turned out a pretty arresting stage extravaganza. There is a strong enough narrative thread in the album to justify the very well-conceived stagecraft. Strong cast, fantastic set and lighting design, and some pretty cool visuals. It's better than a lot of other rock shows that premiered onstage before getting an album. The orchestrations alone are worth the price of admission as they actually require singers to sing in a rock show.

Posted by: Robert at April 21, 2011 12:43 PM

Wow. There sure are a lot of bitchy theater people here today. Welcome. Thanks for coming. There's coffee on the counter and lemon squares in the fridge. Please stick around so I have someone to back me up when these fools start tripping and acting like they ain't ever seen a play before. The fights I've gotten into over the T work around here in regards to her now-shuttered vision of the web-slinging superhero.

Posted by: Robert at April 21, 2011 12:47 PM

Can't stand theatre; better read than viewed.

Posted by: Recondite at April 21, 2011 1:26 PM

SLW maybe you are right...it would be better for you to just sit at home with the albums you downloaded and not attend live performances of any kind. Venturing out into the public and attempting to share human experience can make you vulnerable in many ways. Besides, if you are out in the world where will I get my 5nal Destination updates?

Posted by: dagnabbit at April 21, 2011 1:27 PM

Just going to echo here, as a theatre semi-professional (meaning that sometimes people pay me to act or sing like not-Ian) that the analogy of most Broadway shows being like summer blockbusters is pretty apt; it's just even more acutely noticeable because generally shows have to build a fan base so very slowly. It has to kill in New York to get people to talk about it in the rest of the country, then if the people follow the reviews, maybe it will get a tour so the 5 million or so people scattered around who actually see touring shows on a Tuesday evening or whatever make it financially viable. Shows like Sister Act and the abortion of a Beatles tribute "musical" (it's literally a staged concert with costume changes, no kidding)keep the lights on in the theater. There's just so much more risk involved because theater isn't a thing we do in this country much anymore. And I get that. It's kind of a pain in the ass, and so much of it is either poorly performed or so broad as to be witless (see: 9 to 5 the musical), so there's a higher chance that you'll come away feeling jipped or aghast. But I promise the good stuff is out there. The best musical I've ever seen in my life was a community theater production of "Falsettoes". You just have to look.

Posted by: Ian at April 21, 2011 1:29 PM

Oh my. Looks like the costume designer borrowed a reject from Joel Schumacher's Discount Bondage Closet. (Why a reject? No sculpted bat nipples)

And who is the saucy-looking tart in the red behind Catwoman? The one with the hammer? She seems to be a super-female spun off from the justice system, if the giant gavel is any indication. Knowing nothing about who she really is, I am going to make her into a character of mine own: Juris Prudence!

Mild-mannered county clerk by day, caped and apparently be-spectacled crime fighter by night! Justice isn't blind, she's both near- and far-sighted! Villains quake when they get served...up to the police! Can you feel the Hammer of Justice, the Jury of Fury, the Gavel of...Travel. (Still working on it)

Objection? Overruled.

Appeal? Denied.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Bitches.

Posted by: StoatCat at April 21, 2011 1:52 PM

As awesome as Juris Prudence sounds, I think that's the equally punny Harley Quinn.

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at April 21, 2011 1:58 PM

I can totally see that Joker shrieking "fiddle about, fiddle about" over Who chords

Posted by: idleprimate at April 21, 2011 2:15 PM

Americans hate theater. Look what it did to Lincoln.
...to soon?

Posted by: Odnon. at April 21, 2011 2:22 PM

Alas. I suppose I am too used to my (admittedly fuzzy) memory of her in the Batman cartoon from the mid-90s to recognize her in that get-up. I prefer Juris Prudence, too. Either that, or she should be some sort of militant librarian who has taken a liking to a giant hammer, as militant lesbians so often do. Bless them.

However, the more I look at Batman's costume, the more I am disturbed. What's with the rippling upper thigh/hip muscles? I've never seen bulgy things in that area of the leg on any dude. It looks like it should knife into the guy's thighs every time he squats. Seems alittle counterproductive. Or maybe Batman has leg tumors? THE WORLD DEMANDS TO KNOW, MYSTERIOUS COSTUME MAVEN OF SHITTY BROADWAY PLAYS.

Posted by: StoatCat at April 21, 2011 2:26 PM

Damn. In the above post, I meant to say "militant librarians" again and not "militant lesbians". We're not here to perpetuate stereotypes, even though a venn diagram of those two communities probably has more purple than red or blue, if you get my drift.

I offer my sincerest apologies for my gaffe, and beg you to not hurt me or sneak up behind me and shush me. I'll keep it to a whisper, I swear.

Posted by: StoatCat at April 21, 2011 2:36 PM

And Robin looks like some kind of friggin' TMNT,

Posted by: Odnon. at April 21, 2011 2:38 PM

After seeing the header pic, I really wanted to the title of the show to actually be Batman: Live?

Posted by: Cody at April 21, 2011 2:39 PM

I offer my sincerest apologies for my gaffe, and beg you to not hurt me or sneak up behind me and shush me. I'll keep it to a whisper, I swear.

I think you'll be safe from the lesbians. Librarians are notorious shushers though...

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at April 21, 2011 2:49 PM

A radio ad for a local production has a tagline I like:

"Live theater...Always in 3D!"

-Ralphie

Posted by: ralphie at April 21, 2011 3:11 PM

So... let me get this straight. A post about how silly a Batman and a Sister Act show is somehow translates into "Pajiba hates theater." Did I get that right?

Wow. It's a shame about that stereotype about theater people taking themselves too seriously. Because really, that leap is akin to saying that because Pajiba gave When In Rome a negative review, they must hate comedies.

Posted by: Exploding Head Syndrome at April 21, 2011 3:46 PM

Well, when the post is called "I don't understand theatre".
That's kind of a blanket statement.

Posted by: Odnon. at April 21, 2011 4:15 PM

After seeing the header pic, I really wanted to the title of the show to actually be Batman: Live?

^^ This so much.

Posted by: jubilat at April 21, 2011 7:37 PM

I wish I could give a damn about theater, I really do, but this story is exactly why I don't.

I understand that pure drama doesn't pull in the audiences like The Gay Story of how Gay Became So Gay, but a singing, blinking Starlight Express-esque extravaganza is not theater, it's burlesque at best.

Posted by: Protoguy at April 21, 2011 8:57 PM