I had to get to this one sooner or later.
In 2005 I felt very privileged to attend a colossal flop of a Broadway show entitled "In My Life". This was written, directed, produced, and everything else-ed by Joe Brooks, Oscar winning composer of "You Light Up My Life" and was, perhaps, one of the most entertaining evenings of theatre I've ever spent. But in that very special way...where something transcends being bad and becomes so bad its good. Seriously, people were GIVING away tickets to this thing (How do you think I got them?) and it got some horrible reviews. Which is understandable. Whether it be the roller skating angels, the young musician wannabe hero with tourettes shouting obscenities, or the lemons that descended from the sky at the end, this one was a classic clunker that will go down in history.
Musical flops can be determined by a lot of things. Artistic merit sometimes has little to do with it and you get into the field of the business of shows. According to author Peter Filichia, who recently announced that he would write a book on big hits and flops in Broadway history, defines a flop through four categories: The expectations for it (think Frank Loesser of Guys and Dolls and his flop Greenwillow), the critical reception (my post about Glory Days discussed a show getting lambasted by the media after its one night run), length of run (Bring Back Birdie, the sequel to...well you can probably figure it out...ran only 4 performances) and the big one: How much money was lost.
There is one musical that is considered the ultimate in flops. The ultimate in disasters. This show failed in every category above: Expectations were high (The composers of Fame, a Tony winning actress and choreographer, a bestselling author for source material), critics hated it, it closed in five performances and it lost around $7 million. And it has developed the ultimate of cult followings. Because the music is believed by many to be great. (I find there is a lot of unmotivated belting, but nonetheless there are several haunting melodies)
In 2005 I felt very privileged to attend a colossal flop of a Broadway show entitled "In My Life". This was written, directed, produced, and everything else-ed by Joe Brooks, Oscar winning composer of "You Light Up My Life" and was, perhaps, one of the most entertaining evenings of theatre I've ever spent. But in that very special way...where something transcends being bad and becomes so bad its good. Seriously, people were GIVING away tickets to this thing (How do you think I got them?) and it got some horrible reviews. Which is understandable. Whether it be the roller skating angels, the young musician wannabe hero with tourettes shouting obscenities, or the lemons that descended from the sky at the end, this one was a classic clunker that will go down in history.
Musical flops can be determined by a lot of things. Artistic merit sometimes has little to do with it and you get into the field of the business of shows. According to author Peter Filichia, who recently announced that he would write a book on big hits and flops in Broadway history, defines a flop through four categories: The expectations for it (think Frank Loesser of Guys and Dolls and his flop Greenwillow), the critical reception (my post about Glory Days discussed a show getting lambasted by the media after its one night run), length of run (Bring Back Birdie, the sequel to...well you can probably figure it out...ran only 4 performances) and the big one: How much money was lost.
There is one musical that is considered the ultimate in flops. The ultimate in disasters. This show failed in every category above: Expectations were high (The composers of Fame, a Tony winning actress and choreographer, a bestselling author for source material), critics hated it, it closed in five performances and it lost around $7 million. And it has developed the ultimate of cult followings. Because the music is believed by many to be great. (I find there is a lot of unmotivated belting, but nonetheless there are several haunting melodies)
Musical theatre geeks now know that I'm talking about Carrie. Yes, THAT Carrie. The one based on Stephen King's 1970s novel about a tormented high school girl with telekenetic powers. The 1979 film made stars out of Sissy Spacek and John Travolta. The musical version was developed by Michael Gore (music), Dean Pitchford (Lyrics) and Lawrence D. Cohen (book). The team was responsible for "Fame". They then teamed up with the Royal Shakespeare Company. Fame + RSC=CONFUSED.
The show inspired the wonderful book "Not Since Carrie", which details the disaster of this show. A few highlights of the train wreck include a book very difficult to follow, an assault on eyes and ears with special effects to make up for said bad book, the fact that the high school kids were played by overworked thirty year old actors, and the insanity of the music (at the time audiences weren't as accustomed to mega belting, which Carrie was full of)...but it is hard for me to sum up his account here. It sounds like a "You had to be there" situation to really understand. Below is a link to one account of the show that I found.
What's crazy about Carrie is that it just may have lasted longer in a different time. Many accounts of the show criticize it for it's blaring belting songs, which have become a staple of musical theatre today (Wicked, Aida, Side Show, Rent). In addition, perhaps we enjoy the music now because it is a throwback to an era that is now considered vintage. The 80s pop flavor is predominant but there are some beautifully written melodies that cause us to feel for the troubled teen and haunt us.
Still, no show can survive on belting alone. The costumes and scenery were nightmarish, and the choreography resembles an 80s dance video. Instead of focusing on the terrifying relationship between Carrie and her peers, the focus went to being ridiculous and garish. It used spectacle to mask poor character development and weak plot. Still, it certainly had an effect on audiences: It left many cheering, many booing, and many with their jaws on the floor at the utter ridiculousness in front of their eyes. People didn't know what to think...which is another unique factor.
In my previous post I talked about weird ideas for musicals that ended up working. I honestly think Carrie might have worked too in the right hands. Some of the music is rather like Debbie Gibson on acid...perhaps a stronger connection stylistically would have made a difference. Betty Buckley, of Cats fame, played Carrie's psycho religious mother, and Linzi Haitley, an 18 year old British newbie, played Carrie. When the two sang together the melodies reflected their angst filled relationship. Then all of a sudden the audience was transported into a fast forwarded Cyndi Lauper music video. One of the things that made the film version of Carrie so terrifying was the darkness that existed in the minds of these girls who seemed so normal. The idea then comes to the surface: The questions of inner and outer beauty and how good and evil take on many forms. But in the musical the creators stuck to what was easy: Girls jumping around in unitards and dancing frantically. The show is also criticized for its special effects being, well, unaffecting. Again though, these days who knows what they might be able to pull off? Some say the scene of Carrie destroying her entire high school couldn't have been done onstage-others say this production just did it wrong.
In the reviews of this show we hear that this was a terrible idea for a musical. I disagree. If we can write musicals about demon barbers, trapped men in caves, child killers, and manic depression we can have a musical about a telekentic teenager. It's all in the execution.
The rights to produce Carrie are not available, though there have been several productions, including one at Stagedoor Manor, a theatre camp for teenagers. The production was not sanctioned by the creators, who attended and expressed their disdain, but nonetheless allowed it to continue. There are revisions of the script and music online at the links below. Perhaps we will be seeing this thing remounted more often, and I wouldn't be surprised if audiences in certain areas flocked to it--if for no other reason than for a morbid fascination.
A TV review of the Broadway production
Several TV reviews
A TV review of the Broadway production
Several TV reviews
Hi,
ReplyDeletewonderful blog entry. Very funny! I quoted you at talkstephenking.blogspot.com. I hope that's okay. Thanks for the great post!