| re: Broadway's longest running play ... |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:06 am EST 12/29/17 |
| In reply to: re: Broadway's longest running play ... - MFeingold 09:08 am EST 12/29/17 |
|
Broadway is analytically confusing. It is (more or less) the only place in the performing arts where art collides with commerce. And so it is easy to get twisted in knots trying to figure out what is "good." If making buckets of money were the sole aspiration, plays would (with very limited exceptions, ever) make no sense at all. If creating the highest form of art were the aspiration, we would have no such real estate as Broadway. When we fret about long runs, on what are we focusing?
I think a production has to be judged on its own terms. If that is commercial, let's see how well it does. If it is artistic, then I think we ought to look at how it contributes to the theatrical art form. And yes there can be pleasant surprises when a great play makes money, or a commercial enterprise accidentally stumbles onto something artistically significant.
But there is no reason to be ashamed of short runs. In the period of cash cow plays you mention we also had the Group Theatre. Which do we care about more? Plays in recent years on Broadway have not been an embarrassment. And plays not on Broadway have given us a great deal. |
|
reply
|
|
| Previous: |
re: Broadway's longest running play ... - MFeingold 07:14 pm EST 12/29/17 |
| Next: |
re: Broadway's longest running play ... - Jax 01:02 pm EST 12/29/17 |
| Thread: |
|
