Research from a Book

I think....I just realized how strangely off topic last week's post was. I'll try to rectify this by writing a new one in the future. But bloody hell, did I get off topic or what?
But steering back to the topic of today, I found a book called How Does the Show Go On: An Introduction to the Theater.

Appropriate, I think, for my goal of developing a basic understanding of what theatre is.
I think to try to look into the entire book would lead to a very lengthy, ridiculously so post, as is evidenced by the walls of text I churned out from a section of a magazine article and a very short NYTimes piece. And looking at my fellow peers' work, perhaps I'm overdoing it some.

Anyway, what I learned from this book was an overview of different kinds of shows. The most notable of which are the Broadway ones, of course, so they can be divided into Broadway and Off-Broadway (Broadway is located in New York). Off-Broadway means a smaller theatre in New York. The London version of Broadway shows are called West End shows (this explains so much, I had no idea what that meant). Quite often, successful shows will be traveled and shipped to different places around the country (domestic tours) or around the world (international tours). Regional theatres (or resident theatres) are professional theatre companies located throughout the states that put on plays. Summer stock theatres are seasonal plays put on for locals and tourists in the summer by all levels of actors.

There are different styles of theatres too. Most relate to where the audience sits in relation to the stage. The Proscenium is the most common, where the audience faces the stage at the front of a room and a curtain separates the two. A Thrust stage is nearly the same, but has a piece that, as the name suggests, 'thrusts' into the audience, which surround it on three sides. The amphitheater is the old, classic times from the Ancient Greeks and Romans. They were built outdoors, with the audience seating built in a semi circle bowl facing the stage, which held sound very well.

Good Lord, what is there to analyze? I learned what I learned. But it seems the book put Broadway shows on a completely other level, with West End following close behind. While yes, they are much more notable, why exactly? And it would seem there are many different types of theatre for all levels of the profession, not to mention, as the book did and I did not, there are many other jobs in theatre besides acting. The different levels of theatre provide opportunities for them to break into the business and gain experience.

Also, unrelated, something I thought very interesting was that the Ancient Greeks and Romans found the bowl shaped amphitheater amplified sound, as they did not have microphones back then (another thing that fascinates me, the Greeks. And Romans too, I suppose).
Honestly, reading this had made me have twice as many questions as answers. Back to the library, I suppose!

Questions for pondering (almost spelled that as pomegranate, for some reason):
1) What differentiates levels of quality of the professions involved in theatre? What makes a make-up artist good, or an actor excellent, or a director fantastic? (Actually, this is close to what I intended for my essential question.)
2)  What are different benefits of different types of theatres? What type of plays would work best in what types of theatre?
3) As the example of the amphitheater was built to emphasize sound, how else would different types of theatres affect technical aspects of plays?

Schumacher, T. (2007). How does the show go on: An introduction to the theater. (1 ed., pp. 12-15). New York: Disney Enterprises.

Research Gleaned from a Newspaper

Finding an interesting magazine article last week was a ridiculously difficult task compared to this week. Theatre in newspapers? Psh, I've just found a dozen. And not only that, but I can find newspapers reviews of musicals I've been curious about. (Reviews are allowed, right? Right?)
This makes me giddily happy.
To explain, I can't really recall a musical I've seen (or at least enjoyed and remembered) and I don't count High School Musical, which still makes me cringe to this day. So upon discovering that there are musicals that aren't injected with steroids of sap and fluff, I... well, not much really.
So I'm doing something about it now!
Okay, starting with perhaps the first musical I'd heard of that seemed intriguing (note, I've yet to actually see it, any incarnation of it). Which, being Phantom of  the Opera, perhaps refutes some of what I'd just said, but I'd not really known what it was about. I did assume it was similar to The Hunchback of Notre Dame, though. Unfortunately, the article's not particularly lengthy, so in an effort to wring it for every drop of possible speculation, this will branch from  the actual musical itself.

The article starts by describing how aged the theatre and equipment is, especially the 'signature special effect' which is a chandelier that trundles down in an anticlimactic crash. It explains precisely why, but then offers that for all it's outdated props, it still fares well, and for glass raising reason. For it's talented cast and emotional value, it far outstrips some of the newer, less worthy, shall we say, musicals who more rely on, what do they call them, stunt casting? Where they rely on already popular faces to draw crowds rather than the promise of memorable quality entertainment (How To Succeed in business, anyone? It's been noted for the blandness of the characters.) Phantom of the Opera rings of professionalism with it's 'Maria Bjornson’s flamboyant gothic design and Harold Prince’s fantastical staging'.
It still delivers the audience to a past world of dramatic contrasts and romance for the passionate soul, though despite that it remains fresh as when it first came out, it will not win over what the article says is a large contingency of Andrew Lloyd Webber haters.
This is all fantastic news, considering that years ago, during the Fall of 2003 it had seemed to be staggering around on it's last few breaths. It's peers had already given up and collapsed into demise, yet time traveling to the time the article was penned (or typed) it was still selling out.
(And this is where I checked the date the article was published. July 1, 2005. Bravo, self, bravo. Alas, it's pointless to just delete the entire thing, I feel. On we go!)
The tale was helped by the film version of the musical (by Joel Schumacher), which, while it helped introduce the story to those who otherwise would have never seen it, only was great in that it helped to remind people of how superior the musical is.
Which isn't a bad thing at all.
The overseer in charge, Mr. Prince, of casting has done well in not resorting to the aforementioned stunt casting when sales dropped and panic could have risen. The actors themselves remain disciplined and have not grown lax, giving in to the 'lazy flourishes' that can occur when an actor grows bored of repeated performances.

Alright, analyze. My take on this is that you can't buy quality.
Well, yes you can. You can buy talented actors and fantastic props and technology and the best equipment in this galaxy, but the fact remains that at the very core of it all, if the story is worthless, so is the show.
Basically, what I suppose I'm trying to say is that a truly touching tale, one that really leaves you walking out of the world into reality again and feeling disoriented because you got so involved in the characters' problems can't be replaced. Fancy technology will always be replaced year after year with bigger bang and boom, and eventually the dazzle of a show will be outgrown. But a truly worthy show will leave people wanting to update it and bring it back again and again and again. (I think I'm getting sleepy and reiterating myself. Have I made my point?) For instance, the much raved and reviewed movie Avatar I felt was a brilliant display of how far technology has come and the brilliant things you can do with it (really, the graphics were gorgeous) but I didn't really feel invested in the story and characters.

Alright, digest this and then perhaps ponder, my non-existent audience:
1) What really draws you into a story and makes it worth re-visiting over and over again? Or have you yet to find one like that, and so what do you think would captivate you?
2) Can a story be entertaining and absolutely fine with decent plot but with FANTASTIC glitter and (as the band director Mr. Friedman says, 'whoosh') fireworks? Because, let's be honest, sometimes being BEDAZZLED is just as great, when you're not in the mood to contemplate the politics of a set of fictional character's lives.
3) I'll probably come up with better questions tomorrow.

Zinoman, J. (2005, July 5). Old and ghostly but still a hoot.The New York Times. Retrieved from http://theater.nytimes.com/2005/07/01/theater/reviews/01phan.html

Magazine

While looking at various magazines, I found a rather lengthy article that had a section on Shakespeare, which I thought fascinating. So, why not start with the most iconic playwright of all time? Going back in history should set some foundation of knowledge (hopefully).

According to the article, the company Shakespeare was a part of centered around the economic factor, the shareholders, specifically. These actors, being the ones financially invested, were the core, and infinitely more likely to play a part than a hired man. This also led to stability in the group, as there would be less coming and going of actors performing a part, then leaving, and this meant the performers were capable of developing relationships that are present on stage, that the audience can see and will react to.

Richard Burbage was an excellent madman. Will Kemp the charming clown, was replaced by Robert Armin, a short man with a great singing voice. That William Shakespeare knew who would be performing the roles he wrote enabled him to tailor and tweak them to better showcase his group's talents.

He also was able to observe the apprentices closer. As women were not allowed to perform, boys instead performed the parts, with their more effeminate faces and higher voices. It was common then for a young apprentice to be taken on by a master of the trade, one experienced, whether it be for tailoring, baking, or acting. And because these apprentices were inexperienced, and more liable to make mistakes on stage, their master would generally perform with them onstage. Hence why the women most often had scenes with a particular male character.

To perhaps analyze further what was just summarized, because the troupe (although that might not be the correct term, depending on it they traveled) stayed fairly consistent, the members were able to get to know each other and develop relationships that manifested on stage. It was easier to perform with someone you knew and could perhaps anticipate, than an utter stranger. Shakespeare possibly made roles based around what he knew they were capable of, rather than creating an empty role and trying to stuff an actor into it, to make them fit. As such, because they would have pulled it off better, undoubtedly the performances would have been better, which may have contributed to his success. 

To take a modern example, a friend adores the comedic play A Very Potter Musical, performed the the acting group Starkids. It's rather evident that they are a group of friends performing, rather than performers performing as friends. Their ability, as such, to enjoy themselves more on stage is possibly what encourages them to continue performing with friends and turn the play into an entertaining experience for the audience.

It mentions that women were not allowed to perform, and were rarely written as "effective female characters" but that Shakespeare did. By contrast, his plays brimmed with them. As such, the boys playing them had to perform effectively. Economically, if they couldn't, the crowd wouldn't like it, and they would not get paid. Also, how stage time was managed and how effectively came into play. To help minimize the time a master would require to prepare a boy to perform alone, he could instead perform in scenes with him, as mentioned earlier.

That's actually about all the particular section on Shakespeare mentions, which is a pity, because it is interesting and I do wish I had more to muse on.

So to reflect, what problems could having boys playing the women roles have resulted in? And what further benefits could having someone familiar on stage provide?

Thomas, N. (2011, January). From shakespeare to oklahoma: a history of byways. Scene4, Retrieved from http://www.archives.scene4.com/jan-2011/0111/nathanthomas0111.html

Essential Question

Hm. Not quite sure what to say...

Alright, this blog was created for the purpose of researching musical theatre for English class, in which we have to create a blog and research something for seventeen weeks.
I have, actually, despised theatre most of my life, probably not because I can't dance, sing, nor act, but I feel the urge to strangle people who randomly burst out into song in class, and so when I see people doing the same on stage or screen (High School Musical, anyone?) the, uh, yeah, the same happens. I do enjoy band, reading/writing, and drawing, so one day, I randomly realized, 'oh hang on, when you mix all those up, you get a musical!' (it makes sense in my mind, bear with me) and so I started, uh, writing one. Well, sort of. Naturally, I know little to nothing of theatre, besides what I read in miscellaneous books.
So when my lovely, amusing teacher mentioned we could research a topic of our choice, it presented the perfect oppurtunity. Opportunity. Bugger, I keep spelling it wrong. I digress, because it would force me to actually go and look up things and talk to people (which I ha- dislike, I dislike seeking out and interacting with people I don't know) like my friend suggested.
I've no idea if this will be a fruitful venture or not, but it's something I'm interested in, I've no better ideas, and, hm, yeah.

Oh, yes, I also have recently found the use of gifs. I apologize in advance if these are not allowed, and can take them out, but I find them to be highly amusing and very illustrative where words fail are lacking.

Edited 2/12/12:

Right, well I went and completely forgot the purpose of the the first post, instead rambling pointlessly. I'll leave it up there, though, for posterity.

My essential question is:

What precisely defines musical theatre, and what makes it entertaining and intriguing to people?