> > > > So I wonder if that's what we're headed to once we realize that Andrew Lloyd Webber isn't all that hot after all.
> > >
> > > He's NOT???
> > >
> > > *aghast*
> > >
> > > Mi "Always thought Stephen Schwartz was the man, myself--very quirky" ke
> >
> > You weren't the only one to gasp at that comment!
>
> I can't tell for sure, but I read Mike's gasp as sarcasm.
>
> Andrew Lloyd Webber wrote some bouncy fun songs, but his musicals (with arguably Evita the only exception) are shallow, shallow, and shallow. Never mind that they do not contain ideas; they don't even generally contain cohesive emotions or moods. Generally the songs are totally inappropriate to the (shallow) stories his musicals tell. I think the reason "Cats" is his most popular musical is because it doesn't *try* to tell a story, so there's nothing inconsistent music can screw up.
>
> The most cursory contrast of Lloyd Webber with -- well, heck, anybody from Gilbert and Sullivan to Stephen Sondheim -- is all it takes to expose the superficiality of his work. Even if one is to look strictly at his songs in isolation, rather than the context of a broader work, and they look like safe, unambitious formula.
>
> I'm not arguing that Andrew Lloyd Webber isn't sometimes fun. But he's like candy. Tastes sweet at the time, but it's useless for sustenance, and you might have a tummy ache afterward.

I go to plays for the same reason I go to the movies. I like fun and entertainment. Music and comedy fill the bill. I don't go to the movies or to plays for an education, to be shocked, or to cry or feel terrible. A little history is harmless enough as long as it doesn't get violent. A car chase is OK as long as they use old taxis painted up to look like average cars. I don't want to see a classic Porche or Packard smashed. A fist fight is OK too, but I don't want to see bloody teeth. Plays seem to entertain better than movies, because they deal with real time and real people. There are no retakes on the stage.

Lately, I have seen more plays than movies. Live performances of "Cats" and "42nd Street" more than equal a dozen movies. I saw a couple of other plays recently. One was "Smoke on the Mountain" and the other was "The Sanders Family Christmas." While not in a class with the first two that I mentioned, they were worth two or three movies each.

I also like musical reviews such as you can see on cruise ships, at theme parks, or even Las Vegas. They usually draw from popular Broadway fare. One performer that I saw recently was a magician, and then a few nights later a concert pianist. The magic was OK, but when he played Chopin for a solid hour I was almost blown away.

Light dramas like the classic "Casablanca" are good too. That was one of the few movies where I have felt like the talent of the players rose above the material. It was just a formula romance, with terrible effects, and in black and white at that, but the performances of such actors as Bogey and Bergman made it a classic. For me at least.

While I am rambling around I guess I should mention the reader poll. I haven't seen a single one of those movies, but I have seen Johnny Depp and I tossed him a vote. He's a great actor, and had he been born a few decades sooner, he would have held his own in the Hollywood of the 40's and 50's.

If this all sounds like I am partial to the old stuff, I confess. Even those gaudy MGM musicals of a half a century ago are in my plus column.
How"Oklahoma!"ard