From HAIR to RENT: Is Musical Theater ever new?

“There is nothing new in art except talent.” Chekhov


I saw Hair this weekend, and have been thinking of this quote ever since. (Full disclosure, I had to look up who originally said it. I am not up on my Chekhov, I just remembered liking the quote). This was my first time seeing Hair, and the cast was fantastic, and full of energy and life. I only knew a few of the songs going in, which is odd for me, as I usually try to familiarize myself with the music before I go see a show. The sets were minimal, the band on stage is becoming a trend in shows (Spring Awakening, Next to Normal and Sweeney Todd are all doing that right now, and I have seen those in the past year) and the music still felt relevant some 30 years later. All in all very enjoyable. 


So, why Chekhov? Because I think he was wrong. Far be it from me to argue with a lauded dead Russian, but I think there are new things to be had in art in general and theater especially. Watching Hair on Saturday, I kept wondering how people felt when they saw this show in the original run. In the early 1960's, Fiddler on the Roof, Hello Dolly and The Sound of Music all won Tony's for Best Musical. Big, traditional musicals all. And then came Hair. With sex and drugs and electric guitars and leaving the stage to mingle with the audience. It must have been shocking and confusing and awe inspiring and moving to see. It must have felt like I felt watching Rent for the first time. 


I saw Rent in June 1997, when I was 19 and loved all things musical theater. I grew up with Les Miz and My Fair Lady, and had just done Into the Woods in college. My knowledge was limited to shows I had seen with my high school, or had been made into movies, but I loved them and sought out new shows as often as I could. I came across the soundtrack to Rent through a friend, and knew immediately that this was something new and different. I knew I liked the edgy lyrics because there was still enough "broadway" in there to keep me happy. My friends and I debated if Angel was a girl or a boy, and questioned what Stoli was. We were 19. And then we saw Rent for ourselves. We had gone to NYC to see The Lion King (great show, tickets were a gift because no college kid could afford the $120 ticket price) and stayed to see the late performance of Rent. We already had tickets for later in the summer, but somehow we could not wait. We HAD to see it that day.

Rent was shocking and awe inspiring and moving, and I cried several times. It was seeing my generation up on stage, with the most talented people I had ever seen pouring their hearts and souls and anger into the lyrics. It was early enough in the run that we saw most of the original cast, which looking back is amazing to me, but at the time I didn't know Taye Diggs from Adam Pascal. I didn't know this show would go on to be on the cover of Time, or even that Jonathon Larson has recently passed away, devastating the cast. I just knew that for two and a half hours, I was transfixed, and I felt like I was seeing something new.


I wasn't of course. If not for Hair, Rent probably would not exist. And if not for Rent, Spring Awakening probably would not exist either. And so it goes. Maybe Chekhov was right, and everything is just a new spin on something else.  But Hair lost the Best Musical Tony award to patriotic, traditional 1776, and Rent won both the Tony and the Pulitzer Prize. So maybe as we as a culture grow, we are learning better to accept things that are new to us, even if others before us have seen it all before. 

A Mad Men length hiatus...

So there I was, blogging away through the fall, and something crazy happened: I got involved in other things! No more time to dissect my favorite tv shows? No movies to see and skip around the holidays? No (gasp!!) award show commentary?! Alas, my plate was sadly full of life and I slacked off. Now however, as we go into spring, we have an exciting season of Summer Blockbuster Movies to look forward to, season and series finales of beloved tv shows, one of the strongest New York theater seasons in years, and the geek in me is bright eyed and bushy tailed.
As it happens, a major event in the pop culture world is this weekend. Game of Thrones, the major undertaking of George RR Martin's series of books, premieres on HBO this Sunday at 9. I will admit, I had never even heard of the series until the casting began for the tv show, and only recently read the first book, upon which the first season will (presumably) be based. (In going forth, I will just speak to Book one of the series, which is actually titled Game of Thrones). Having read the first book, watched the 15 minute sneak peek and sought out several trailers, I can tell you I am excited. I am not a hardcore fantasy buff, but I love fantasy done well. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and The Chronicles of Narnia all have special places on my bookshelves and have been read and reread several times. I have been mostly pleased with the movie adaptations of each of the aforementioned series, and especially with LOTR.  Game of Thrones, on the surface, most resembles Tolkien's trilogy in that it is less focused on magic, and more focused on the people of a far away, or alternate, or forgotten realm. They have big differences though, and in those differences are where the decision to make Game of Thrones into a television show and not a movie was a wise one.  To wit,

• There is no grand quest in Thrones. There are several wars, skirmishes and missions, but there is no carrying One Ring into Mordor. There are people making their way in the world, doing what they believe is best for their families, and often dealing with the harsh realities of their situations. 
• There are no inherently good or inherently evil people in this series. There are people who do evil things, but when reading LOTR you knew right away that Sauron was evil incarnate. Game of Thrones just doesn't have that. There are characters you will love, characters you will hate, and many who, like in life, will fall somewhere in between. This is the greatest strength of the story, and what brings you into the world more than any sword fight ever could. 
• Sex! HBO is playing this up quite a bit (this is the network of True Blood after all) but it really is a little shocking when reading a fantasy book to find that there are sex scenes, and sex scenes done well! No overly flowery language, no ridiculous descriptions of women opening like flowers (the worst sex scene offense in any book in my opinion) and even humor surrounding the situations! 
• People die. Not like "Gandalf fights the Balrog and we think he is dead but isn't really" die. Actually die. Tragically, shockingly, brutally die. I will not say more for fear of ruining things for people, but be forewarned. Anything can happen. This is the LOST of fantasy novels in that respect.
• It is unfinished. This is the biggest difference, and one that could well cause the biggest problem, for directors, actors and mostly for fans. There has been a long gap between Books 4 and 5 (coming in July) but Martin has said there are to be 7 in the series. Can we wait that long? Can the series? Will we have a satisfying ending?

I have no idea how the legions of Martin zealots will like the series, or how people who have never heard of the books with jump into the show with no previous knowledge, but I am somewhere in the middle. I have read Book 1, and am eager to read the rest, but don't have the ire towards Martin that many waiting fans have. I may be in the best position, with knowledge but no expectations. No matter what else, we are sure to get lush scenery, an excellent cast and plenty of wit. Also, sex. Don't forget the sex, because after all, this isn't tv, it's HBO.

Game of Thrones