<p>Glad you enjoyed Anne Hathaway; as did I…but then I enjoyed Russell Crowe too because I thought he brought a unique edge to the performance.
And I really don’t want to argue…the whole point was demographic reach. If they cast all Broadway stars and Bergdorf’s had sponsored it, the audience numbers would have been significantly less. And obviously, some people want it that way.
My son is at Point Park (the director is an alum) and I know that at the MT watch party, there was a fair amount of discussion about the choice of CU but the overwhelming response among students was how wonderful for this to be happening – to give theatre stars who are unknown in popular culture a chance to reach 18.5 million people in a single night. There are clearly many ways to look at this, I suppose.</p>
<p>…“If this was the first glimpse a lower middle class kid somewhere with no access to live theatre had of our world, I will stand by that it was indeed still a very good thing.”</p>
<p>So, I don’t understand this and we hear it all the time. My daughter goes to a magnet program at an inner city high school where 95-percent of the students are on free lunch. They do musicals. Maybe, it’s unique to our area but there is no shortage of cheap or even free live theater.</p>
<p>I am sorry, I edited out my comparison because I didn’t want it to seem too harsh. I don’t want to argue either. To each his own and what one person thinks is good theater greatly varies from another. It does make sense to me now. ( I am not a money person, or understand the complexity of the tv industry) Now that I know who sponsored the show I understand why Carrie was chosen. Still makes me sad that the choice was money driven and not talent driven. (acting talent)</p>
<p>…“If this was the first glimpse a lower middle class kid somewhere with no access to live theatre had of our world, I will stand by that it was indeed still a very good thing.”</p>
<p>…children in lower middle class households deserve a quality product as much as the more advantaged child. We all deserved a better product.</p>
<p>But once again, what is one person’s idea of good theater is different. I agree that this was a wonderful endeavor to bring live theater to the masses and I hope that this will not be the last time we get this opportunity.</p>
<p>I don’t think there is a shortage of free or low-cost theatre…but still the majority do not go to these kind of performances EVER. This reduces us to anecdotalism, however – I think the director and producer had far more to say about the reasoning behind this musical at this time on that network – than I could possibly say - so I will defer to they-who-did-the-research and obviously pulled off a ratings coup that is unrivalled in the United States except for sporting events. Let’s keep trying, America.</p>
<p>No worries, bisouu - I just went in and did an edit of my own! :)</p>
<p>For the purposes of this thread what’s much more interesting to me is the clear misunderstanding of the skill set required to do this successfully. Even if a lot of the audience won’t notice, it matters.</p>
<p>^ Well said, Flossy! Her acting was atrocious. It is disturbing to me that they used CU solely for the ratings. Couldn’t they have used a star who can’t act in another, less important role to bring the ratings up? I for one could not watch the whole show, b/c it was THAT painful. She should have been stopped. It was embarrassing. The bottom line is that even if you argue that millions were exposed to musical theater who never would have been before…why expose them to BAD musical theater? The same thing could have been accomplished by using good singer/actors. And someone mentioned that this underscores the importance of acting in a MT degree. AGREED!</p>
<p>Brava VeritasMT!</p>
<p>And, for those of you who say Broadway isn’t seen by the masses, the Broadway League reports, “11.6 million people saw a Broadway show during the 2012-13 season, down 6% from last year. Broadway grossed $1.14 billion in ticket sales, down 1% from the 2011-12 season.” The reason for the downturn? Hurricane Sandy. Otherwise, Broadway attendance has been going UP. And, while it is disappointing that Broadway also succumbs to “let’s hire a star to bring in an audience,” or “let’s turn a movie into a Broadway show,” the fact remains that there are still original, popular musicals coming to life and raking in the dough (Book of Mormon, anyone?). I think we should stop making excuses and tell it like it is. Let’s reward excellence, not mediocrity and Walmart. SoM Live was NOT excellent.</p>
<p>Agreed! I’m also still puzzled by this argument about how the masses can’t afford live theater. It doesn’t have to be Broadway, for Pete’s sake. Does anyone seriously think that after seeing a TV production the masses are going to go to more Broadway shows? Or any shows?</p>
<p>I live on the other side of the country from Broadway and I see live theater all the time. Local high schools theater, community theater, regional theater and touring companies. Many are cheaper than a night at the movies. Not sure SOM did much to encourage those who have never gone to want to go any time soon.</p>
<p>And if they HAD to have a gimmick artist to bring in the masses, I bet they could have found another one that could have done a way better job. My fear is that exposing people to bad MT could turn people off to the great stuff out there.</p>
<p>alwaysamom, thanks for sharing. What a well-written piece. He mentions that some theatre performers have panned the performance in vitriolic fashion. That to me speaks volumes not so much about Carrie Underwood, but about any supposed professional who would make catty tweets or blog about how bad they thought another person’s performance was. Any actual person working in MT who would do that is in need of a lesson in how to conduct themselves as a professional. The internet is not a vacuum. tweets and blog posts live on, and on, and on…plus, it is just really bad form. Most actors take heed to that rule very early on in their careers. Some don’t I guess. That should be left to non-performers, but that’s not the world we live in. Carrie Underwood is a bona fide star who has chops and has done much in her career. I don’t even listen to her music, but I know that she has earned a reputation as a gracious, professional and hard working performer. I’m sure if the shoe was on the other foot, she wouldn’t be taking shots at someone else’s professional efforts.</p>
<p>VeritasMT, 11.6 million people saw a Broadway show over a 365 day period last year. 14.6 million people watched the Dancing with the Stars finale last week over a two hour period.</p>
<p>^ I wasn’t comparing Broadway attendance with the number of people who watch mindless reality TV. I was making the point that: 1) millions of people see Broadway shows each year; and 2) Broadway isn’t dying. We don’t need to fall back to bad MT on TV to give the masses a taste of MT. And, others are correct…there is so much wonderful theater all over the country, not just on Broadway. Saying that the SoM Live was good b/c it introduced people to musical theater is like saying Dancing with the Stars is good b/c it’s introduces people to NYC ballet.</p>
<p>Making a lot out of a little I think. They cast Carrie Underwood because the network knew she can sing, and because they knew she would draw a ton of viewers. And that ultimately translates to money and ratings. Comparing it to live MT on stage is comparing apples and oranges.</p>
<p>Comparing it to live MT on stage is comparing apples and oranges. </p>
<p>Nope. There is a case to be made, but that’s not it. IMHO. Everyone else acted.</p>
<p>Can I just say…
I hated it.</p>
<p>–Sincerely, a musical theater enthusiast</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone is saying that Broadway is dying. However, I can tell you that theatre, in general, is a business where it is extremely, and increasingly, difficult to make a profit. Theatres and theatre companies close each and every year. Most kids who are studying theatre in college will never grace a Broadway stage even once in their careers. If they want to act, they’re likely going to have to book work other than in NY. This is why it’s important to support theatre everywhere, theatre of all kinds and also to help develop future audiences, and that will be done occasionally by unconventional/controversial/atypical means.</p>
<p>As I mentioned in one of these SOM discussions, when the RENT movie was done, there was huge controversy among longtime fans of the show, for a few different reasons. However, in spite of the controversy, the film version was seen by millions of kids who became new fans and who flocked to the Nederlander in NY to see the show. The influx of new fans helped the show to run for three more years, when it had been struggling and almost certainly would have been gone. It also launched very successful tours again, both non-Equity (that employed mostly new grads) and ultimately, the anniversary tour that was tremendously successful as several of the original Broadway castmembers and alumni from other tours were cast. </p>
<p>This is just one story about one show but could probably be repeated over and over. SOM may have had problems but the reality is that it employed actors and it also brought live theatre to a large audience, some of whom may be enticed to go to their local theatre and pay to see a show. And that is a positive.</p>
<p>Well said alwaysamom. I didn’t read too far back, hope I’m not repeating . . . I also believe that the financial success of SoM will lead NBC and maybe other networks to do another production. Maybe they’ll make some changes based on feedback from the masses. I see another show as another opportunity for young performers (in addition to all you mentioned above). I also wonder about the pay . . . you would think it might’ve been pretty good since it was TV.</p>
<p>Performances aside, what was a little odd for me was the lack of an audience reaction. I missed the laughter (even the soft chuckles for a clever pun), the applause, rustling sounds, etc. That said, my younger daughter (9) LOVED it, and my older two (16/18) enjoyed it as well.<br>
I had my nit pick moments, too (acting, Carrie, it’s called ACTING!), but it was fun. So glad NBC took the chance. I hope it is not the last…</p>