There I waffled on about the Concept Musical in terms of THE SONGS and THE FORM. Aha, saith Thos, but what of THE CONTENT? It’s really the content (correct me if I’m wrong) that determines whether a show is a Concept Musical. So the Concept Musicals that I identified as such – Cabaret, Chicago, Catch Me If You Can – are really just traditional book musicals with “gimmicks” attached.
Plenty to chew over.
But thinking about it, Thos is absolutely right on the first bit. THE CONTENT is indeed a very good place to start. So we can distinguish between:
A) NARRATIVE MUSICALS – musicals with a story following the same character/s acting out a series of events
B) CONCEPT MUSICALS – musicals with little or no overarching narrative but held together by an common theme or idea
Doing a quick mind survey (i.e. “can’t be bothered to do any actual research”) I’d say that most musicals are A-type musicals. But, as Thos notes, under B-type musicals you could have:
Oh, What A Lovely War! (concept = the insanity of the First World War)
Hair (concept = hippies)
To which I’d add:
Cats (concept = er, cats)
I’d also be tempted to include Company. Although there is a central character, it’s more a collection of independent scenes based around a common theme (concept = couples’ relationships).
This is a useful distinction and far better than my waffly description of a Concept Musical. So far, so agreeable.
However when it comes to THE FORM (how a narrative/concept is told) I’m not sure that “gimmick” is the quite the nail-head hitter. More on this later. But for the moment I’m sticking with my original distinctions of Form which concentrate on how the songs mix it with the dialogue. And, thinking again, my original term to describe this - “disassociation” - was about as useful as a penny in a pound store. So let me try again:
1. THE SEAMLESS FORM – a mixture of dialogue scenes and songs where the songs arise seamlessly from the dialogue.
2. THE INTERRUPTED FORM – a mixture of dialogue scenes and songs where the songs in some way interrupt the dialogue, although are still integrated with the drama.
3. THE CONTINUOUS FORM – mostly sung from start to finish with little or no dialogue.
At this point, should the mood take us, we could combine our definitions of Content and Form:
A1 NARRATIVE SEAMLESS (Show Boat, Oklahoma, West Side Story, My Fair Lady, Fiddler on the Roof, Guys and Dolls, Gypsy)
A2 NARRATIVE INTERRUPTED (Cabaret, Chicago, Catch Me If You Can)
A3 NARRATIVE CONTINUOUS (Evita, Phantom, Les Miz, Miss Saigon)
B1 CONCEPT SEAMLESS (Company [well, probably a mix of B1 and B2])
B2 CONCEPT INTERRUPTED (Oh, What A Lovely War!, Hair)
B3 CONCEPT CONTINUOUS (Cats)
So what of Thos’ “gimmick”? Well, dictionary.com is fine but I’m more of an OED man
myself:
Gimmick: a trick or device intended to attract attention rather than fulfil a useful purpose
The key here is the purposefulness. If it doesn’t serve a dramatic purpose, then it’s a “gimmick”. If it does, then what? Let’s just call it a theatrical “device”. So the cabaret numbers of Cabaret or the revue numbers of Chicago help to illustrate the drama and, as such, are useful devices.
My problem with Catch Me If You Can, then, isn’t, as I previously thought, to do with the content or the form. Instead it’s the particular choice of dramatic device. The central question of the story – how’d this teenager get away with it? – simply isn’t answered by presenting the songs as if they’re part a 1960s TV special. To say that multi-million dollar fraud can be perpetrated with a touch of showbiz razzle-dazzle is just too glib. The device doesn’t serve its dramatic purpose and so it feels, well, a bit gimmicky.
So that’s sorted that. Clear as.
No comments:
Post a Comment